Soumen Das & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 May, 2017

CRA No. 260 of 2016

Soumen Das Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay

For the Appellant : Mr. Debasish Roy,
Mr. Jayanta Narayan
Chatterjee,
Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas,
Mr. Apalok Basu,
Mr. Amit Basu,
Ms. Moumita Pandit,
Mr. Thirthankar Dey,
Ms. Priyanka Chatterjee,
Mr. Rupam Chatterjee,

For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal
Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.
Ms. Imran Ali.

Heard on : 17/05/2017.
Judgment on : 17/05/2017.

Challenging the legal pregnablility and valicity of the

judgment and order of conviction dated 09/6/2013 and

10/3/2016

passed by the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Kakdwip in Sessions Trial no. 6(4) of 2011, the

appellants came before this Court contending, inter alia, that

the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspectives.

According to the appellants, there is no evidence

regarding abetment and in spite of that they have been

convicted under Section 306 of the I.P.C. He has also pointed

out that the recording of the trial Court which speaks that

charges were framed under Section 304B of IPC, but actually

charge was framed under Sections 498A/306 of IPC.

To come to a finding, we should revisit the prosecution

story. If I unfurl the prosecution story, it will be seen that the

marriage of the victim with the appellant no.1 was held just

four months before the fateful day. Some demands were made

at the time of marriage and that was given. According to the

FIR, after the marriage they demanded a pitcher, but that has

not been given and so she was subjected to torture. The victim

committed suicide by hanging and has left a suicidal note by

saying that nobody is responsible for her suicide.

However, after the FIR is registered, the investigating

agency came into operation. In course of investigation, the I.O.

has recorded the statements of the witnesses, collected post-

mortem report, collected inquest report and thereafter had

submitted the chargesheet under Section 498A/304B/306 of

the IPC. However, the learned trial Court had framed the

charge under Sections 498A/306 of the IPC and against the
accused persons. The State has not preferred any revision

challenging the framing of charge.

Now we have to ascertain the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses.

Evidence of the P.W. 1 and 2 are not at all relevant

because they did not make any whisper even regarding the

involvement of the present appellants in the commission of

offence.

The P. W. 3 is the brother of the victim and he is also the

FIR maker. In course of evidence-in-chief, he stated that his

sister reported him that a gold chain was demanded by the

appellants, but significantly that has not been mentioned in the

FIR itself. Although, he himself has lodged the FIR. He also

admitted that at the relevant point of time the victim was

pregnant. In course of cross-examination, he has further

admitted that the victim along with her husband came to their

house on several times and they also took the dinner. He also

admitted that the victim was never treated by any doctor

neither at their instance nor they lodged any complaint or diary

before any authority alleging the torture.

In course of cross-examination, he has specifically stated

that the victim did not commit suicide out of mental depression
although dying declaration itself speaks that she was suffering

from mental agony.

The P.W. 4 is another brother of the victim. He has stated

that a gold chain and a dabar were demanded by the

appellants/accused persons. For the first time, dabar has been

introduced in his evidence, but that fact did not find any place

in the submission of P.W. 3 and also in the FIR. He also

admitted that he is a resident of Howrah and occasionally he

comes to the house of the victim.

P. W. 5 stated that the victim herself expressed her

unhappiness regarding her conjugal life, but other witnesses

did not support this P.W.5 in any manner.

Evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 are not at all relevant for the

purpose of adjudication.

P.Ws. 9 and 10 are the hearsay witnesses.

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses, it appears that the story of inducement was not

there at all. Since the victim died within seven years of

marriage and that was unnatural in nature, that does not mean

that in every case by invoking of Section 113A Evidence Act a

person should be held guilty. The prosecution was supposed to

bring some other factors, which would be evident from the
mouth of the witnesses to justify that there was at all any

abetment.

After going through the evidence and the documents, it

appears to me that the prosecution could not establish the case

beyond all reasonable doubts and disputes and particularly

when the dying declaration does not speak of involvement any

person in this world.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment does not sustain

and it is hereby set aside. The CRA 260 of 2016 stands allowed.

The accused persons/appellants be set at liberty at once.

The learned trial Court is hereby directed to release the

accused persons/appellants forthwith, if they are not wanted in

any other cases. The department is directed to send a copy of

this judgment along with the lower Court records at once.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be given to the parties.

(Siddhartha Chattopadhyay,J.)

Leave a Comment

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