CRR 1749 of 2011
an Court No. 34
(Mongola Pramanick vs. Bibhuti Nag anr.)
CRA 657 of 2010
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Mr. Apalak Basu
Mr. Tirthankar Dey
Ms. Moumita Pandit
……… For the petitioner
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, ld. P. P.
Mr. Imran Ali
……… For the State
This criminal revisional application emanates from the judgment and
order of conviction dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalna in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2008. By the impugned judgment, the
learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian
According to the petitioner, the finding of the learned trial court is
erroneous and if the prosecution evidence be scrutinized properly, in that case, it
would be seen that there is no merit in it. The learned trial court failed to consider
this aspect of the matter in its proper perspectives.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that the factual aspects of the
case need to be revisited.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated form
is such that the victim’s marriage was held with the appellant nearly five years back
from the date of incident. Soon after the marriage, she was subjected to physical
and mental torture. Time to time Salish was held but it was abortive. The victim
noticed that her husband has an illicit affair with one Tori Pramanick. When she
raised protest, she was assaulted. According to the prosecution, the act of the
appellant compelled her to eliminate her self.
The learned trial court after a threadbare discussion held that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is no appeal preferred by the State as against the finding of the learned trial
stage, we shall confine ourselves only to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
which is set out hereunder:
“S. 498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty – Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation – For the purpose of this Section, “cruelty” means –
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.” .
Law is very clear so far as cruelty is concerned in such case. In the
explanation clause legislature in its wisdom has mentioned the circumstances,
when it will be treated as a guilty. The story of dowry has not been established.
But one thing that is clear that the entire problem cropped up due to illicit affair of
the appellant with another lady. However, that cannot be the ground for an offence
Therefore, considering the above, this court has no option left with
except to set aside the impugned judgment of the learned trial court.
Hence, with the above directions, the criminal revisional application
being CRR 1749 of 2011 stands allowed. The appellant be set at liberty at once.
Accordingly, the appeal being CRA 657 of 2010 is also disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned trial court for
information and necessary action.
Let the entire lower court record be sent down to the learned court below
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given
to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.)