Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.
Kamrul Huda - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
CRA 551 of 2017
Decided On : 19-09-2022
498A - Criminal Law - IPC - Section 498A/304B/302/34 - The court discussed the evidence and interpretation of Section 498A of the IPC, emphasizing the requirement to establish cruelty likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and the distinction between harassment for dowry and general allegations of torture. The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, leading to the setting aside of the impugned judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the unnatural death of a woman who was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws over the demand for money. The trial court convicted the husband under Section 498A of the IPC, but the appellant challenged the judgment, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented was full of discrepancies and general allegations, and there was insufficient proof to establish the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The court set aside the impugned judgment, emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace proof.
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, considering the requirement to establish cruelty likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for convincing evidence to establish the elements of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, including the requirement to prove cruelty likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. The court highlighted the distinction between harassment for dowry and general allegations of torture, and the insufficiency of general allegations to establish criminal liability.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was released from bail bond. The court directed a copy of the judgment to be sent to the trial court for information and necessary action.
JUDGMENT
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur in S.C Case No. 42 of 2013, S.T. Case No. 35 of 2013. By the impugned judgement learned Trial Court was pleased to record an order of conviction against the appellant for committing offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with a default clause.
2. Briefly stated, Khurshid Ali of Kishangunj set the criminal administration of justice into motion by informing the Officer-in-charge of Islampur Police Station, Uttar Dinajpur about the unnatural death of his daughter Jarina Khatun who was married to Md. Kamrul Huda. It was disclosed that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, ornaments made of gold and silver, utensils and furniture, wrist watch, bi-cycle etc. were presented. His daughter gave birth to two children. After marriage Jarina was subjected to physical and mental torture over the demand of money by her husband and parents-in-law. Jarina was put under pressure to fetch money from her father and her failure invited plight in marital life. Torture was reached to such an extent that Panchayet Pradhan had to intervene to settle the dispute. On 29th January, 2005 around 8.30 p.m. Khurshid Ali came to learn that his daughter Jarina succumbed to burn injury, in her matrimonial home. As the information disclosed offence cognizable in nature Islampur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2005 dated 13 January, 2005 was registered under Section 498A/302/34 of the I.P.C.
3. After compliance of provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and 209 of Cr.P.C. the case was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Islampur for disposal.
4. Charge was framed against accused persons under Section 498A/304B of the I.P.C. alternatively under Section 498A/302/34 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons and pleading innocence to the charges, they claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home charges prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and having considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgement recording an order of conviction only against Md. Kamrul Huda for committing offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Charges under Section 304B or 302 I.P.C. were not proved as against him while rest of the accused persons were acquitted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. from the case.
6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee for the appellant assailing the impugned judgement adverted that the prosecution has failed to establish any ingredient of offence within the meaning of Section 498A of the I.P.C. by adducing cogent evidence. The evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses is full of discrepancies. Learned Trial Court recorded an order of conviction absolutely on misreading of evidence.
7. Drawing my attention the oral testimony of the witnesses Mr. Chatterjee argued that PW-1 the informant during cross-examination stated that her daughter gave birth to two children and started living in separate mess with her husband. No complaint was ever made by the said witness before any authority over the torture allegedly perpetrated upon his daughter.
8. The elder son of the victim was aged about 8 years at the time of incident but said child was not examined as witness. Mother of the victim as PW-2 stated that a cow was given to her daughter after she gave birth to two children so that her grandchildren can be provided with milk. PW-4 Samsul Hoque stated about Jhagrajhati (quarrel) used to take place between the couple but according to PW-4 it was normal wear and tear of life and nothing else. PW-8 Asir Md. Stated in his evidence in-chief that husband of Jarina used to tell Jarina to bring money from her parents as he wanted to start business. He was the matchmaker so Jarina used to come to h
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for convincing evidence to prove the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, emphasizing the need to establish cruelty likely to ....
Cruelty inflicted by a husband on his wife due to dowry demands, leading to her suicide within seven years of marriage, constitutes an offense under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conviction under Section 498A of IPC requires clear evidence of physical or mental cruelty, which was not established in this case.
The absence of evidence supporting a dowry demand negates the conviction under Section 498A unless proven that conduct resulted in cruelty independent of such demands.
Cruelty – No leniency is required to be shown towards accused in dowry offences.
The guilt under Section 498A IPC was established through consistent witness testimony despite minor contradictions, affirming the necessity for reliability in evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
