SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 803

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
Gouranga Maity - Appellant
Versus
The State Of West Bengal – Respondent 
CRA 643 of 2015
Decided On : 27-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ayan Basu, Adv., Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Adv., Mr. Sumit Routh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Joydeep Roy, Adv. Ms. Sujata Das, Adv.

The prosecution must provide clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC, and failure to do so results in the dismissal of charges.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Appeal against conviction for cruelty and dowry demands - Appellant convicted and sentenced for 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC - Conviction challenged on grounds of delayed complaint, inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of evidence - Court highlighted that prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing discrepancies in dates and testimony credibility leading to reasonable doubt on prosecution case - Conviction set aside, appeal allowed. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 13, 22, 25, 28)

Facts of the case:
The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging cruelty and demand for dowry after facing physical abuse from her husband and in-laws post-marriage in March 2008, following several efforts to resolve disputes. The complainant asserted torture and injury on February 15, 2010, leading to her filing an FIR on March 17, 2010.

Findings of Court:
The court found discrepancies in the complainant's allegations, including inconsistencies regarding the nature of injuries and delay in filing the complaint. Court emphasized the requirement for clear prima facie evidence in such cases.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established a case beyond reasonable doubt as required for conviction under Section 498-A IPC?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the prosecution could not prove the allegations due to significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the evidence presented, thus failing to inspire confidence in the court.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis of evidence, highlighting discrepancies. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 21 , 24)
4. ratio decidendi on discrepancies and their significance. (Para 12 , 22 , 23)
5. final conclusion, allowing the appeal and setting aside conviction. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.Pc. by the appellant against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, 2nd Court at Contai, Purba Mednipur, in Sessions Trial no. 8/January/2015 arising out of Egra P.S case No. 36 of 2010 dated 17.3.2010 thereby convicting the appellant herein under Section 235 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1973, for commission of offence punishable under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs 2000/-I default to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months.

Brief resume of the prosecution of the case

2. Briefly stated, the marriage between the de-facto complainant and the appellant was solemnized on March10, 2008 as per Hindu rites and custom and during marriage on demand of the appellant the de-facto paid Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and spend approx Rs. 3 lakh. After marriage they led conjugal life at the matrimonial home with all the accused person including the father-in-law but after few months the problem cropped up between the parties as they started pressurizing her for bringing an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from her father and as the de-facto complainant expressed her inability she was subjected to cruelty by assault and abuse in various ways. In the meantime they blessed with a male child but during birth of the child none attended the Nursing Home and nor contacted her and then she started residing at her father’s house .There was an attempt to settle the dispute with the intervention of panchayet but failed and later before Egra P.S assured proper treatment and took her with her child to the matrimonial home. The father in-law during her stay at her matrimonial home taking advantage of the absence of her husband often gave her ill proposal and tried to outrage her modesty for few times. On intimation to this fact none of her husband or mother-in-law paid any heed to the same rather asked her not to divulge before any person. On February 15, 2010 at 7 A.M. on the plea of having fault in household work all the F.I.R named accused persons started assaulting her with fists ,slap, kick and blow on her abdomen and other parts of her body and the appellant hit her with a rod on the left side of her head as she shouted for help he fled away from the house and as assault of such she received bleeding injuries on her left side of her head and then she came to her father’s house in that condition and narrated everything to her father and then she took her to Darua Hospital and arranged for treatment . After that she lodged the complaint on March 17, 2010. On the basis of such complaint the Egra P.S case no. 36 of 2010 started under Section 498A /325/307/34 IPC . After completion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons under aforesaid sections read with Section 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Learned Court framed the charges under Section 3 25/498A /307/34 and the trial commenced since the accused pleaded not guilty. The learned Court after hearing and assessing the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses passed the order of conviction against the appellant /husband and acquitted the other two accused persons. Being aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed for setting aside the said judgement and order of conviction.

Submissions

3. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that after the marriage the de-facto stayed about only 5/6 months at he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top