Back
2016 Supreme(Tri) 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Nandalal Roy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. NO.76 OF 2012
Decided On : 18-04-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C.Debnath, Addl.P.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific material particulars to establish allegations of cruelty under Section 498(A) of IPC and the insufficiency of omnibus statements in proving the charge.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Criminal Appeal - Section 498(A) of IPC - [Section 498(A) of IPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 498(A) of IPC, which prescribes punishment for exercise of cruelty towards a married woman. The court highlighted the need for the prosecution to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and the requirement to prove harassment with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demands. The court emphasized the importance of proving specific material particulars to establish the allegations of cruelty and highlighted the insufficiency of omnibus statements in proving the charge under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint filed by a woman alleging torture and demand for dowry by her husband and father-in-law. The trial court found the accused guilty of committing an offence under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed the decision, which was dismissed, leading to a revisional application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge framed against the accused had not been proved. It emphasized the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the allegations of cruelty and concluded that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence were liable to be set aside.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the allegations of torture and demand for dowry, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charge under Section 498(A) of IPC, and the perversity of the findings by the trial and appellate courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific material particulars to establish allegations of cruelty under Section 498(A) of IPC and highlighted the insufficiency of omnibus statements in proving the charge. It also stressed the importance of weighing the evidence on record and not jumping to a conclusion of guilt based solely on allegations of torture.
Final Decision: The re-visional application was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside.
This revisional application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2012, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, in Criminal Appeal No.34/2012 where under the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 26.07.2012, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur, North Tripura in Case No.GR 21/2011 was upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik for the accused-petitioner and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C.Debnath for the State-respondent.
3. Prosecution case is that Smt. Namita Roy (P.W.2) filed a written complaint before the S.D.J.M., Kanchanpur on 10.11.2010 alleging inter alia that her marriage was solemnized with the accused-petitioner Nandalal Roy in the month of March, 2001 and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and two child were born out of their cohabitation. Her husband Nandalal Roy at the instigation of his father Manmohan Roy, used to inflict torture upon her on demand of Rs.20,000/- as dowry. When she expressed her inability to bring the amount from her parental house, the torture was increased. On 06.05.2010, both the accused persons physically tortured her on demand of Rs.20,000/- and thereafter her husband left her after conspiracy with her father-in- law. No maintenance was given to her. Thereafter being compelled she took shelter in her parental home on 04.10.2010.
3.1 The complaint filed by Namita Roy was sent to the O.C., Pecharthal P.S. to register it as an FIR and accordingly, Pecharthal P.S. Case No.06/11 under Section 498(A)/34 of IPC was registered against Nandalal Roy alias Nanda Roy and his father, Manmohan Roy.
3.2 After investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against Nandalal Roy and in course of trial, learned SDJM framed charge against accused Nandalal Roy for commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Prosecution examined 8(eight) witnesses altogether and out of them P.W.1 is the minor son of Nandalal Roy; P.W.2 is the victim woman herself; P.Ws 3 and 4 are the parents of Namita; P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 are the independent witnesses of the locality and P.W.8 is the I.O. of the case.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and in his turn accused did not adduce any defence evidence.
Defence case is that of denial of the prosecution case.
6. At the conclusion of trial, learned S.D.J.M. found the accused-petitioner guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for two months.
7. Aggrieved the accused-petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2012 in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar and the appeal was dismissed by impugned judgment and order dated 21-09-2012 and hence this re-visional application.
8. Learned counsel, Mr. Kar Bhowmik has submitted that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court arrived at a perverse finding. There is no cogent evidence of exercise of cruelty. The victim Namita alleged that she was tortured on 06.05.2010. The complaint was filed on 10.11.2010 but in her deposition and in the deposition of her parents they made a clear statement that for last 7 years, the alleged victim Namita was residing at her parental home with her children. Therefore, it is apparent that a false allegation was made since there were matrimonial discord between the husband and wife. All the independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws 5, 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case at all. In such circumstances, since it was a perverse finding, the judgment and order of conviction of sentence is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath fairly submitted that the victim has stated about her tales of torture. But it is true that she made a clear statement that for last
