Monoranjan Koley & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
C.R.A No. 105 of 2010

Monoranjan Koley Anr.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay

For the Appellant : Mr. Sekhar Basu
Mrs. Anusuya Sinha.

For the State : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury,
Ms. Faria Hossain.

For the De Facto Complainant : Swapan Kumar Mallik.

Heard On : 06.07.2017.

C.A.V. On : 06.07.2017
Judgment Delivered On : 24.07.2017.

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.:
The appellants called in question the judgment and order dated

21.12.2009

and 22.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Chandannagar, Hooghly, in S.T. No. 26 of

2009 convicting the appellants under Section 498A, 354, 306, read with Section

109 of I.P.C.

2. According to the appellants, the judgment passed by the learned Trial

Court is without any valid reasons and that there is no evidence in respect of

Section 498A/354/306/109 of I.P.C.

3. In the interest of effective adjudication, factual scenario needs to be

revisited. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case in a capsulated
form is such that that the victim’s marriage was held with the appellant No. 1 in

2004. On the eve of ‘Ashtomongala’, the victim came to her parents’ house and

told her mother that a friend of her husband used to outrage her modesty with

the consent of her husband. The victim reacted and did not agree to give consent

to such obnoxious behaviour but her husband compelled her to do so. The

grievance ventilated in the F.I.R. also speaks that the said friend used to come to

the house of the victim’s parents when the victim had been there. This type of

outraging of modesty was going on for some days and she raised objection.

Thereafter, the husband of the victim told her that she had to entertain his

friends. Then the victim committed suicide.

4. Now, this Court is to consider whether there is any element of Section

306 of I.P.C or not. At the sometime, the Court is to consider meticulously

whether the alleged incident could be possible in presence of many others. The

P.W. 1 categorically stated that the appellant No. 2 used to molest her sister on

the instruction of the appellant No. 1 off and on. He also stated that his sister

protested the said illegal act and informed the matter to the husband/appellant,

READ  Smt. Krishna vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2017

who did not pay any heed to. From his cross-examination, it transpires that

appellant No. 2 got married before the marriage of his sister. He admitted that

when the appellant No. 2 molested or outraged the modesty of the victim, he did

not inform Panchayat or Police Station regarding the alleged physical torture by

the accused and that he did not say anything to the present appellant No. 1

regarding the said dispute.

5. The P.W. 2 has tried to improve the case by saying that on the day of

‘Fulsajja’ he found the appellant No. 2 sitting by the side of the victim putting his

hand on her shoulder. He further stated that when the victim came after 9 days

of her marriage, she disclosed his wife (P.W. 2) that the appellant No. 1 allowed

his friend to his bed which the victim disliked. In course of his cross-

examination, however, she failed to say whether the victim was sentimental or

not. In course of cross-examination he has also tried to improve the case by

saying that the appellant No. 1 had illicit relationship with the wife of the

accused No. 2. In course of cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has

categorically stated “P.W. 2 did not tell me that the accused No. 1 had any illicit

relationship with the wife of the accused No. 1.”

6. The P.W. 3, is the uncle of the victim. He stated that the accused tried to

encourage the victim to have an illicit relationship with the appellant No. 2 and

for which the victim committed suicide. He further stated that he told the

Investigating Officer about the said fact.

7. The P.W. 4 is the sister of the victim. She said that on the day of

‘Boubhat’ she found that the friend of the appellant No. 1 embraced the victim

and also kissed the victim. This statement is not gullible because it is expected

that on the day of ‘Boubhat’ many persons were there and out of them only this

P.W. 4 found the appellant No. 2 to embrace the victim and kissed the victim

openly. The father of the victim stated that at the time of marriage the appellant

No. 2 tried to molest the victim at the instigation of the appellant No. 1. How far

it is acceptable? In our society and particularly when it is a negotiated marriage
many people are supposed to be invited to the marriage and to dine together. At

READ  Vijaya vs Laxmanrao And Anr. on 19 August, 1997

that time the appellant No. 2 attempted to molest the victim. It could be believed,

if on the same day any of them present there raised protest and obstructed the

appellant No. 2 to commit such offence. This P.W. 5 further stated that the

appellant No. 1 used to instigate the victim to behave with ‘the appellant No. 2 ‘as

husband and wife’. In course of cross-examination this witness stated that he

told the Investigating Officer that on the day of ‘Ashtomongala’ the appellant No.2

came with his daughter and son-in-law (appellant No.1) in their house. But when

such question was put to the Investigating Officer, the said Investigating Officer

(P.W. 14) who stated that this P.W. 5 did not tell anything to him in this regard.

8. The P.W. 6, also stated about the same thing i.e. the appellant No. 2

kissed the victim and also embraced her and that the appellant No. 2 was coming

down from the roof by embracing the victim and his hand was on the shoulder

of the victim. The P.W. 7 and the P.W. 8 also led the evidence in the same tone

and tune. The probability factor cannot be ruled out that if it is possible for a

friend of the husband to commit such type of an offence in presence of the

husband, female members of the victim and other relatives and within their

vision.

9. While deciding a case a court should not be oblivious to the probability

factor. If at all such incident happened, certainly the victim’s family members,

who were present in the said marriage ceremony, would rise to the occasion and

would protest and at the same time they ought to have taken their allegation up
to police station. A court of law cannot overlook this aspect. Robust common

sense, shall be the guiding factor.

10. When and why a person commits suicide? It depends on the mind set

of an individual. In similar circumstances, one man may commit suicide but

others may not.

11. These factors are sense of unbearable psychological pain, a sense of

isolation from others and a perception that death is the only solution, when the

said individual is temporarily unable to think candidly being blinded by

overwhelming pain. The researchers pointed out that negative emotions, shame,

anger, fear, sense of guilt and extreme sadness may be the foundation for self-

READ  Smt. Paniben vs State Of Gujarat on 13 March, 1992

destructive behaviour.

12. There are many other prime factors such as recent extreme stresses,

social pressure, chronic pain, physical disease, social stigma, any kind of trauma

of permanent nature and severe depression, which are considered as one of the

reasons of suicide.

13. More often than not suicide stems from blocked or unfulfilled

psychological needs. This tends to be what causes the pain that the suicidal act

seeks to end. A pervasive sense of hopelessness, defined in terms of pessimistic

expectations about the future, is even more important than other form of

negative emotions, such as anger and depression, in predicting suicidal

behaviour. In such a situation, the person who commits suicide is fully

convinced that nothing can be done to improve his situation. Sometimes some

people contemplate suicide. They have ambivalent feelings about this decision.
Therefore, the suicide provides a distinctive way to escape from intolerable

circumstances, which includes painful self-awareness. The cessation can be

visualized as offering a solution to life’s problems.

14. A person’s mind and body may react to trauma over a period time,

perhaps days, weeks or months so the people suffering from a trauma react in

different ways, suicide is the result of ‘psychotic’. An unbearable psychological

pain arising largely from frustrated psychological needs. It is said there is a great

deal of psychological pain in the world without suicide but there is no suicide

without a great deal of psychological pain.

15. But these are not the instances of any kind of abetment. There is no

complaint before the police authority or before court by the complainant or by the

relatives immediately or within a reasonable time. The victim would be the best

witness to say about the molestation. She is no more in the world. There is no

suicidal note. In such circumstances, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt.

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of

conviction are hereby set aside. The appellants be set at liberty at once and they

be discharged from their respective bail bonds.

17. Let a copy of this order and LCR be sent to the learned Court below at

once for information and taking necessary action.

18. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)
A.F.R/N.A.F.R.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *