Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Sk. Saibul And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. No. 1 of 2018
Decided On : 14-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Himanshu De, Advocate, Navanil De, Advocate, Subhrajit Dey, Advocate, Faria Hossain, Advocate, Sandip Chakraborty, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and cogent evidence to establish the offence under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the duty to scrutinize evidence independently, the need for independent witnesses, and the implications of contradictions and lack of documentation in the prosecution's case.

Headnote:
498a - Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, Section 498a, Section 302, Section 120B, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - The judgment discusses the evidence and legal provisions related to the offence under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. It highlights the interpretation of cruelty, the burden of proof, and the standard of evidence required to establish the offence. The court also considers the implications of the evidence on the charge of murder and the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence independently.
Fact of the Case:

The case involves the appeal against the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was allegedly subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws, leading to her death. The prosecution presented evidence from relatives of the deceased, while the defence contested the reliability of the witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, primarily from the deceased's relatives, was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the lack of independent witnesses, contradictions in the evidence, and the absence of documentation or complaints during the lifetime of the deceased. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the burden of proof in establishing the offence under Section 498a, and the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence independently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable and cogent evidence to establish the offence under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the importance of independent witnesses, the duty to scrutinize evidence independently, and the implications of contradictions and lack of documentation in the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and discharged the appellants from their respective bail bonds.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Haldia in Sessions Trial No. 67/2014 arising out of Sessions Case No. 388/august/2014 convicting the appellants under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each with fine and default clause is assailed in the instant appeal.

One Syed Rashid ali lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Nandigram Police Station on 21st September, 2012 stating, inter alia, that marriage of his daughter, Samina Begum was held with one, Sk. Saibul according to Mohammedan rites and ceremonies. after marriage the husband of Samina and other matrimonial relations, viz., her mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law used to torture her very often both physically and mentally. In her wedlock, she gave birth to two daughters. During the month of September, 2012, she was pregnant and due to give birth to another issue. after the birth of their two children the husband and other matrimonial relations started to put pressure upon the de facto complainant to bring money from her father's house in order to keep those money in fixed deposit for the future of the daughters of Samina. as the father of Samina could not satisfy the demand of the accused persons, she was tortured both physically and mentally. It is alleged that on 20th September, 2012 the accused persons assaulted her severely and committed murder by strangulation. Then to conceal the evidence of murder they hanged her with a rope. The de facto complainant got information of the said incident at about 5.00 a.m. on 21st September, 2012 and rushed to the matrimonial home of is daughter. He found that the dead body of Samina was lying on the 'Varandah' of the house of the accused persons and there was a mark of ligature around her neck.

On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered Nandigram Police Station Case No. 220/2012 dated 21st September, 2012 under Sections 498a/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act and took up the case for investigation.

On completion of investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against the above-named accused persons under Sections 498a/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition act before the Learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia.

Since the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipore. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Fast Track Court of the learned additional Sessions Judge at Haldia for trial and disposal.

Charge was framed against the accused persons under Sections 498a/302 of the Indian Penal Code. as the accused persons pleaded not guilty the prosecution was called upon to produce evidence. In all prosecution examined nine witnesses.

Defence case as disclosed from the cross-emanation of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution was denial of the prosecution story.

The Learned Trial Judge on due consideration of evidence on record held that the prosecution was able to bring home the charge against the accused persons under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code. accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced.

The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused persons is under challenge in the instant appeal.

It is already recorded that during trial prosecution examined nine witnesses. amongst them, P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased and the de facto complainant. P.W. 2 is the paternal aunt of the deceased. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 4 is her younger brother. P.W. 5, Sakila Bibi is another sister of deceased Samina. P.W. 6 is the brother-in-law (Jamaibabu) of the deceased. P.W. 7, assistant Sub-Inspector, Jayanta Ghosal prepared inquest over the dead body of Samina. P.W. 8, Dr. P. K. Das is