A conviction for matrimonial cruelty requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; vague allegations of torture, lack of specific temporal details, and inconsistent hearsay or uncorroborated dying declarations are insufficient to establish guilt, particularly when the complaint is initiated from a motive of revenge.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of conviction dated July 18, 2002 passed by the learned Session Judge, Malda, convicting the appellant under section 498A of the Indian penal code and sentenced him to suffer R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigourous imprisonment for three months.

Factual matrix

2. On July 29, 1998 the brother of the victim Ranjith Mondol, lodged a complaint against the present appellant, holding him responsible for the suicide committed by the sister of the complainant on 28/29^th July 2002 by taking poison and also by administering poison to her minor daughter on account of torture inflicted on her both physical and mental on the demand of dowry. The complaint was lodged before Kaliachak Police Station under Section 498A/304B IPC and on completion of investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under the aforesaid provisions. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it went before the learned Court of session on commitment and on perusal of the materials on record and after hearing both the learned Counsels ,the learned session Judge framed the charge under Section 498A/304B of the Indian penal code. The contents of the same was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.

The learned Court after hearing the learned advocates as well as going through the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses and on examination of the accused under Section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, passed the order of conviction under Section 498A against the appellant but acquitted him from the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction the appellant/husband has filed this appeal.

Submissions

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the marriage took place 6/7 years before the incident and a girl child was born from their wedlock. Admittedly it was a case of suicide as can be found from the evidence adduced by the de facto complainant who further admitted that the appellant used to behave normally but the victim was of adamant type of lady. The father P.W. 2 deposed about demand of further dowry but could not give any specific dates of assault. No previous complaint was lodged against the appellant by the de facto complainant or any other family members alleging demand of dowry. It could be found from the evidence that some expenses were borne by the father for the treatment of the appellant but the amount was given to Anil. The mother adduced evidence as P.W. 3 and admitted her daughter committed suicide and further that she lodged the complaint out of grudge.

It is further argued that the Learned Session Court passed the order of acquittal in respect of the charge of Section 304B of IPC due to lack of evidence but passed the order of conviction under Section 498 A of the Indian penal code without having any materials to support the said charge. Accordingly prayed for setting aside the order of conviction.

4. The learned prosecution on the other hand argued that on the basis of the complaint the case was initiated and the Learned Sessions Court though passed the order of acquittal in respect of the charge under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, passed the order of conviction in respect of 498A as there are sufficient materials to attract the said charge. It is further argued th