Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Arindam Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
IA No. : CRAN 2/2017(Old No. :CRAN/4171/2017), CRAN 3 of 2021 In C.R.R 744 of 2015
Decided On : 27-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Adv, Ms. Nandini Chatterjee, Adv, Mr. Nazir Ahmed, Adv, Ms. Jayashree Patra, Adv, for the Appellant; Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, for the Respondent

The prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry, leading to her unnatural death within seven months of her marriage.

Headnote:
Dowry Death - Conviction under Section 498/304B of the Indian Penal Code - [498/304B] - The court affirmed the order of conviction passed against the appellant. The deceased, Bulti, received severe burn injuries at her matrimonial home and succumbed to her injuries within seven months of her marriage. The prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry. The dying declaration, though vigorously criticized, was considered along with the open admission of the appellant that the deceased received burn injury due to problems about dowry after their marriage.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the legality of his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498/304B of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased, Bulti, received severe burn injuries at her matrimonial home and succumbed to her injuries within seven months of her marriage. The prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry. The dying declaration, though vigorously criticized, was considered along with the open admission of the appellant that the deceased received burn injury due to problems about dowry after their marriage.
Finding of the Court:

The court affirmed the order of conviction passed against the appellant. The deceased, Bulti, received severe burn injuries at her matrimonial home and succumbed to her injuries within seven months of her marriage. The prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry. The dying declaration, though vigorously criticized, was considered along with the open admission of the appellant that the deceased received burn injury due to problems about dowry after their marriage.
Issues: The legality of the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498/304B of the Indian Penal Code was challenged by the appellant. The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the dying declaration, though vigorously criticized, along with the open admission of the appellant that the deceased received burn injury due to problems about dowry after their marriage. The prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the order of conviction passed against the appellant. The deceased, Bulti, received severe burn injuries at her matrimonial home and succumbed to her injuries within seven months of her marriage. The prosecution successfully proved that the victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and his parents on demand of dowry. The dying declaration, though vigorously criticized, was considered along with the open admission of the appellant that the deceased received burn injury due to problems about dowry after their marriage.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The appellant has already suffered sentence in Sessions Trial No.5 of 2012 arising out of Session Case No.237 of 2010. After serving out the term period of sentence of imprisonment, he is now released. However, the appellant has pursued the instant appeal questioning the legality of conviction passed by the learned trial court.

2. Chanditala P.S Case No.80 of 2008 was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Prosanta Kumar Koley before the Officer-in-Charge of the said P.S on 13th July, 2008 alleging, inter alia, that his niece Bulti, since deceased, wife of appellant Arindam Kumar received severe burn injury on 13th July, 2008 and she was admitted to Chanditala Rural Hospital. The complainant and other paternal relations of Bulti went to the said hospital and came to know that she was referred to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital for better treatment. They also came to know that on that date at about 9.30 am the appellant and his parents brutally tortured her both physically and mentally and poured kerosene oil on her body and ablazed her. It is also alleged that the time of marriage of Bulti with the appellant, the father of Bulti gave bridal presents, gold ornaments, cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and other articles as per the demand of the bride groom. However, after some days of her marriage, Bulti was subjected to torture by her husband and parents-in-law on demand of dowry. When Bulti expressed her inability to convey demand of her husband and parents-in-law to her father, they raised level of torture upon her. She fled away from her matrimonial home and took shelter at her paternal home but her father, mother and other relatives persuaded her to go back to her matrimonial home.

3. Initially police registered Chanditala P.S Case no. 80 of 2008 dated 13th July, 2008 under Section 498A/326/307/406 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents. But the victim succumbed to her injuries after 17 days of incident. After her death the accused persons were prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. On submissions of charge-sheet under Section 498A/326/302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Serampore for trial and disposal. The learned trial judge on conclusion of trial convicted accused Arindam Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 498/304B of the Indian Penal Code. The parents of the appellant was however acquitted from the charge.

5. The order of conviction is under challenge in the instant appeal.

6. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The witnesses examined during trial of the case may be classified in the following manner:-

A. Related witnesses:

1. PW1: Prosanta Kumar Koley (Uncle of the deceased and defacto complainant).

2. PW2: Provat Koley (Uncle of the deceased).

3. PW3: Amit Koley (Uncle of the deceased).

4. PW4: Ashim Koley (Father of the deceased).

5. PW8: Dipankar Koley (Uncle of the deceased).

B. Doctors:

1. PW7: Dr. Kuntal Biswas.

2. PW11: Dr. Tarun Kumar Sarkar (Examined the victim Lady).

3. PW12: Dr. Tapas Kumar Bose.

4. PW15: Dr. Debasis Halder (Examined the lady).

5. PW16: Dr. Tanveer Adil.