Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 88
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The State of Tripura to be represented by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner - Appellant
Versus
Sri Debasish Debbarma, S/o Sri Dipak Debbarma - Respondent
Crl. A. 12 of 2015
Decided on : 26-03-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms S Deb (Gupta), Spl. PP.
For the Respondent: Mr. S Dutta Choudhury, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific evidence to support illegal demands and the importance of corroboration in proving the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
Headnote:
498A - Domestic Violence - IPC Section 498A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the definition of 'cruelty' and the requirement to establish continuous/persistent cruelty. The court highlighted the need for specific evidence to support illegal demands and the importance of corroboration in proving the offence. The judgment also referenced the power of the High Court to review evidence in cases of acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of domestic violence and harassment by the respondent and his parents against the complainant, including unlawful demands for a car and land partition, as well as cruelty and threats to destroy bridal properties.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court acquitted the respondent, citing lack of reliable evidence and perversity in the trial court's finding of conviction. The court emphasized the need for specific evidence to support illegal demands and the importance of corroboration in proving the offence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the credibility of witnesses, and the interpretation of 'cruelty' in the context of domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the offence under Section 498A, emphasizing the need for specific evidence to support illegal demands and the importance of corroboration in proving the offence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld due to lack of merit in the appeal.
1. Heard Ms S Deb (Gupta), learned special public prosecutor appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 378(1) (b) of the CrPC from the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.01.2015 as delivered in Criminal Appeal No.40(3)/2014 by the Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur. For purpose of record, it may be noted that by the said judgment, the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Udaipur, South Tripura delivered in GR 207 of 2009 dated 08.09.2014 has been set aside.
3. Prosecution against the respondent was initiated by a written complaint filed by one Ruma Banik (Debbarma), wife of the respondent alleging that the respondent and his parents used to torture her on unlawful demands. At the time of marriage, from the parental house of the complainant, the respondent received cash of Rs.60,000/-, Motorcycle, big size television, refrigerator, furniture, gold ornaments, etc. On the very night of marriage, the respondent made a remark that the complainant’s father by not giving him a car has committed “offence”. The complainant did not take that seriously considering the same as a joke. On the following day, when they reached in front of the house of the respondent at Suparibagan, Agartala then he started shouting at her. From the neighbourhood, many people gathered there as a result of such hue and cry. The complainant has stated further that the respondent was abetted by Smt. Suniti Debbarma (Majumdar) and Sri Dipak Debbarma (the parents of the respondent). The respondent had demanded a car. The complainant informed the said incident to her father but her father expressed inability to meet such demand and as a result she was continuously tortured.
4. On 19.03.2007 when the respondent was deputed in the PTC for four months training, she was not provided with proper food in the matrimonial home. Even on the demand of car, the accused persons forced her to go for abortion. Her further allegation is that “violating rules” everyday her husband used to come to their residence. Her father tried to pacify the respondent but it did not have any effect whatsoever. When they knew that the complainant’s father had a share at a house at Ramnagar, they started pressurizing him to get the land partitioned and after such partition the complainant’s parents would give by sale of that land the required money for purchasing a car and other materials.
5. On 21.09.2007 the respondent went to Delhi for six months training. During his absence when she proposed to go to her parent’s house she was not permitted to go by her parents-in-law. The respondent did not pay any maintenance to her. She has alleged that after drinking liquor he used to indulge in cruel treatment and the complainant had apprehension of her life.
6. On 19.03.2009 a meeting was convened for conciliating the problem of their matrimonial life. In that meeting, the relatives of both sides were present. There the entire thing was discussed and the complainant and the respondent were counseled to live together by making necessary adjustment. According to the complainant, on 05.04.2009, 06.04.2009, 16.04.2009, 27.04.2009 and 28.04.2009 the respondent intimidated her by stating that he would destroy all the bridal properties.
7. Based on the said complaint filed on 30.04.2009 the Officer-in-charge of the RK Pur P.S., Udaipur (Exhibit-2) registered the RK Pur P.S. Case No. 144/2009 under Section 498A/34 and took up for investigation. After investigation, the police report was filed chargesheeting the respondent and his parents for committing offence under Section 498A. On taking cognizance thereof, the charge was framed against all the accused persons, but they denied to have committed such offence by pleading innocence and hence, the trial commenced.
8. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses including the compla
