Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Debangsu Basak, Bibhas Ranjan De, JJ.
Pranab Das - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A 87 of 2021
Decided On : 25-07-2022
Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Saha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Purnima Ghosh, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistent and reliable evidence to prove cruelty in connection with dowry demand, and the activation of the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Dowry Harassment - Indian Penal Code - Section 498A/304-B - Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3/4 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC, which defines 'dowry death' and the requirements to prove the charge under this section. It also highlighted the definition of 'cruelty' under Section 498A of the IPC and the statutory presumption as to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized the need for evidence to prove cruelty in connection with dowry demand and the activation of the presumption of dowry death.]
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly harassed and ill-treated by the appellant and his relatives in connection with a demand for dowry. She committed suicide, leading to the filing of a case under Section 498A/306 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 498-A/304-B of the IPC, but acquitted the other accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no reliable evidence to prove that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. It emphasized the lack of consistency in the evidence regarding the demand for dowry and the absence of proof of dowry harassment. The court concluded that the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC could not be sustained and acquitted the appellant of the said charge.
Issues: The key issues revolved around proving the cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry, the reliability of the evidence regarding the demand for dowry, and the activation of the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for consistent and reliable evidence to prove cruelty in connection with dowry demand and highlighted the statutory requirements for invoking the presumption of dowry death. It also considered the conduct of the appellant and the hypersensitive nature of the deceased in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the said charge. The appellant's bail bond was to continue for a period of six months from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - This appeal is directed against order of conviction and sentence dated 19.01.2021 and 20.01.2021 passed by the Additional Session Judge 1st Court, Katwa in Sessions Trial No.06/2014 arising out of Sessions Case No. 38/ 2013 in connection with Katwa Police Station Case No. 141/2012 dated under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, convicting the appellant under Section 498-A/304-B of the IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years (10) for the offence under Section punishable 304-B of the IPC without imposing any separate sentence for the offence under Section 498- A IPC in view of the principle enunciated in Shanti vs. State of Haryana (1991) Criminal Law Journal 1713 (SC).
2. According to prosecution case, after the marriage of appellant Pranab Das with Anita Das, deceased 8/9 years back, she was being harassed and ill treated by the appellant and his other relatives in connection with demand of Rs. 20,000/- for business purpose, as a result of which she committed suicide by consuming poison on 16.05.2012. The written complaint was lodged by PW-1 Smt. Pratima Das before the Officer in charge at Katwa Police Station. After inquiry, on 16.05.2012 FIR (Exhibit-4) was registered against the appellant under Section 498A/306 of IPC. During investigation inquest (Exhibit-2) was performed over the dead body. Post Mortem (Exhibit- 6) on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the doctor (PW-11) attached to Katwa Sub Divisional Hospital District Burdwan who noticed the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure in case of organo phosphorus poison. Sketch map was prepared vide Exhibit -7, certain articles were seized (Exhibit-8) and statements of witnesses were recorded.
3. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against all seven (7) appellants under Section 498A/306 of the IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Trial Court framed charge under section 498A/306 of the IPC against all seven (7) accused persons, which was denied by them. They pleaded innocence and claimed to trial.
4. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Pratima Das, PW-2 Ramdulal Das, PW-3 Khudu Das, PW- 4 Naba Kumar Das, PW-5 Laxman Das, PW-6 Puspa Das, PW-7 Narayan Das, PW-8 Dulal Chakraborty, PW- 9 Ram Ranajan Patra, PW-10 Constable C/950 Swapan Kumar Majhi, PW-11 Dr. Rabindranath Mandal and PW-12 S.I Rahul Dutta (I.O). Statement of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C) in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the trial, pleaded innocence and false implications. However, no evidence was adduced by the accused person in their defence.
5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing Counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant only but acquitted all rest accused persons of this case.
6. Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits as follows:
6.1. According to First Information Report allegation was made against all six (6) accused persons.
6.2. None of the witnesses could segregate the appellant from other accused persons who are acquitted by the impugned judgment.
6.3. None of the witnesses has deposed anything in particular against the appellant to make him stand in a different footing. The witnesses examined on oath did not support their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
6.4. There is no evidence on record to prove the demand of dowry made by the appellant soon before death of victim/ house wife.
6.5. Though PM Doctor opined that death was due to cardio respiratory failure in case of organo phosphorus poison but in cross-examination doctor admitted that his opinion is on the basis of the smell of the contents of stomach. No FSL
