C.R.R. 1137 of 2017
In the matter of : Atanu Pandit
SB Ct. No. 28
Dr. Jyotirmoy Adhikary
Mr. Tirthankar Dhali
….. For the Petitioner
Order dated 07.03.2017 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, 1st Court Contai, Purba Medinipur, in S.T. No.
5/March/2014 under sections 498A/306/34 refusing to amend
the charge and add Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to the
array of charges has been assailed by the petitioner de facto
The prosecution case against the opposite party
nos. 2 to 5 is to the effect that sister of the petitioner namely,
Piyashi Das had been married to opposite party no. 2 for 17
years. From the said wedlock two children were born who are
presently 14 years and 8 years respectively. It has further been
alleged that the victim was ill-treated on demands of dowry and
on 13.06.2012 the petitioner was informed that she had
committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of such
information, a criminal case was registered against the opposite
Penal Code. Charge-sheet was filed against the opposite party
nos. 2 to 5 herein and the case was committed to the Court of
Indian Penal Code. After framing of charges, the petitioner
prayed for adding section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which
being turned down by the Trial Court vide order dated
14.01.2016. The petitioner approached this Court in C.R.R 457
of 2016 but this Court refused to interfere with the said order,
however, giving liberty to the petitioner to agitate his grievance
upon the examination of Autopsy Surgeon.
It appears that the Autopsy Surgeon was examined in the
instant case as P.W. 3 and thereafter the petitioner renewed his
prayer which again was turned down by the Trial Court vide
order dated 07.03.2017. Hence the petitioner is before this
Dr. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon as to the cause of
death is confusing and, therefore, in the facts of the case, it
would be prudent that graver charge under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code be added in the interest of justice.
I have perused the evidence of P.W. 3 who unequivocally
stated that cause of death is due to asphyxia and apoplexy
following hanging which is suicidal and antemortem in nature.
P.W. 3 further deposed that the ligature mark around neck is
evident at the front of both sides of neck and not evident in the
back. He also clarified if ligature mark is interrupted or non-
continuous then it pre-supposed that the death is due to
However, in cross-examination he stated that non-
continuous ligature mark in all cases does not show that it is a
case of suicide.
Non-continuous ligature mark on the neck of the
victim ordinarily is indicative of suicidal hanging. There may be
theoretical exemptions as deposed by P.W. 3 in his cross-
examination, however, such academic hypothesis in the
absence of clear evidence on record probabilising a case of
murder would not justify a strong suspicion as to the murder of
the victim require amending of charge by incorporation of
section 302 of Indian Penal Code to the array of charges.
It was argued that body of the victim was found
under a tree which was not more than six feet in height which
improbabilises a case of suicidal hanging. Such circumstance
does not absolutely negate the possibility of suicidal hanging
nor was such circumstance put to the autopsy surgeon for his
opinion. There is nothing on record to show that this was a
case of homicidal death. Death of the victim occurred 17 years
after her marriage and framing of charge under 304 (B) of
Indian Penal Code or invocation of statutory presumption under
impermissible under such facts and circumstances.
In the aforesaid factual matrix, I am of the opinion
that no case of amending the charges framed and incorporation
of Section 302 of Indian Penal Code has been made out and the
order passed by the Trial Court is upheld.
The petition is accordingly, dismissed.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)