Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
Ananta Kumar Mondal - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondent
CRA 94 of 1991
Decided on : 20-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Amicus Curiae : Mr. Kushal Kr. Mukherjee
For the State : Mr. Saryati Datta
The absence of cogent evidence and the negation of suicide by the deceased woman ruled out the presumption of abetment of suicide by the husband, influencing the court's decision to acquit the appellant.
Headnote:
498A - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code - Section 498A, Section 306
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting his wife to cruelty, leading to her suicide. The court was tasked with determining whether the charges under Sections 498/306 IPC are independent of each other and whether the judgment of conviction is tenable in law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to prove that the appellant instigated his wife to commit suicide, and that the charge under Section 498A could not be sustained without cogent evidence. The court also ruled out the presumption of abetment of suicide by the husband, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had substantiated the charge against the appellant under Section 498A and whether the judgment of conviction was legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of cogent evidence and the negation of suicide by the deceased woman ruled out the presumption of abetment of suicide by the husband, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code were set aside, resulting in the appellant's immediate release.
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.02.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Contai, District- Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. X of June, 1990 convicting the appellant under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months inter-alia, on the grounds that the order of conviction is bad in law and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and the prosecution evidence is wholly bereft of any proof that the accused persons either by express words or conduct, instigated Arati to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in convicting the appellant for charge under Section 498A of IPC, when he was acquitted of charge under Section 306 IPC.
2. Short question which falls for consideration is whether the charges under Sections 498/306 IPC are independent of each other and acquittal of one would lead to acquittal of the other as well.
3. It is submitted Mr. Kushal Kr. Mukherjee, Amicus Curiae that the learned Judge has acted illegally in treating the statements of P.W.s. 3, 4, 5 and 6 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as substantive-evidence and also submitted that when the prosecution declares a witness hostile it exhibits an intention to require the court not to accept the version of the hostile witness as given in the court on oath.
4. It was wrong to hold that the presence of Sandhya in the house of the appellant resulted in torture to Arati but there was no evidence to show that the appellant was living with Sandhya illicitly.
5. Now the point for decision is as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge leveled against the appellant and whether the judgment impugned is tenable in law.
6. To speak precisely, the prosecution case leading to the instant appeal is that Arati Mandal was married to the appellant Ananta Mandal in 1384 B.S. After marriage, they lived happily and begot a daughter and a son, aged about 5/6 years and 2 years respectively in the year of occurrence. The lady accused Sandhya alias Bishnupriya Pal was the elder widowed sister of the deceased Arati and P.W.-4
7. Kalipada was their brother. They lost their parents in their early childhood and were brought up by the maternal uncle, the de facto complainant.
8. On the death of the husband of the accused Sandhya, she resided in the house of her house maternal uncle. About six months prior to the date of occurrence on 14.4.1987, the appellant took Sandhya to his house and developed illicit intimacy with her to which the deceased Arati used to protest and on her such protest both the accused persons used to inflict mental and physical torture on her.
9. In the midnight of 14.4.1987 one Bhanu Jana (P.W.-3) a co-villager of the accused Ananta informed the defacto complainant that on 14.4.1987 the accused persons tortured the deceased Arati and being unable to bear such torture she committed suicide at 10.00 P.M. by taking poisonous insecticide.
10. On getting that news the de facto complainant went to the house of the accused and verified the facts from the villagers of the accused Ananta and then lodged the written complaint at about 09.05 hours on 15.4.1987 with Patashpur P.S. On the basis of which Patashpur P.S. Case No. 5 dated 15.4.1987 under Sections 498A/306 of Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant and on usual investigation S.I. Sambhunath Hazra, I.O. submitted Charge-sheet against the appellant.
11. After framing of charge under Sections 498A/306 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant, trial started and on closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which he declined to adduce any defence witness.
12. Defence is one of denial of charges leveled against him as it emerges from the trend of the cross-examination of the prose
