In The Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 5TH
Present: Vikramjit Sen
Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court,Chinsurah, Hooghly.
Case no. G.R. No. 548/2018
T.R. No. 189/2018
C.I.S No. 1005/2018
1. Tapas Das
2. China Das
3. Sourav Das
Statute and sections of statute: Sections 498A/406/34 of I.P.C.
Date of Judgment: 27.12.2018.
The brief fact of the prosecution case is that on 09.04.2018 at about 09:45 hrs., the de facto complainant, namely, Sima Das lodged a written complaint before the Mogra P.S. stating that she had married Tapas Das on 17.02.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. However, after few days of her marriage, the husband and her in-laws of the de-facto complainant (hereinafter accused persons) used to torture her mentally and physically over the dowry articles given at the time of marriage. Even after knowing the inability to satisfy their demand, the accuse No.1 used to abuse the complainant with indecent filthy languages and on 07.04.2018, after being tortured mercilessly by the accused persons, the de facto complainant somehow rescued herself and fled away from her matrimonial home without taking any of her stridhan articles from the possession of the accused persons. the com and she was forced to take shelter separately in a rented house.
Thereafter, on 09.04.2018 the de-facto complainant filed the present complaint before the Mogra P.S. On the basis of her such complaint the instant case was registered as F.I.R. No. 93/18 dt. 09.04.2018 u/s 498A/406 of I.P.C. against all the three (03) accused persons, namely, Tapas Das, China Das and Sourav Das and investigation was started.
After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet being Mogra P.S. C.S. No. 112/18 dt. 31.05.2018 u/s 498A/406 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. On the basis of such charge-sheet cognizance was taken by the Ld. C.J.M. and thereafter the record was transferred to this Court for disposal.
On 26.12.2018, all the three (03) accused persons appeared before the Court and after hearing their Ld. Advocate and the Ld. A.P.P., charges were framed against the accused persons u/s 498A/406/34 of I.P.C. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
On behalf of the prosecution three (03) witnesses were produced before the Court. Sima Das, the de-facto complainant deposed as P.W.1, her father Shanti Ranjan Das deposed as P.W.2. and her sister, Shipra Modak deposed as P.W. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, only one document was exhibited. The signature of the de-facto complainant on the written complaint was marked as Exhibit 1. On the basis of the materials on record, the accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 27.12.2018, i.e., today. The accused persons claimed to be innocent and declined to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
For the determination of the present case following points are to be considered:
1. Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the accused person is liable to be convicted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 of I.P.C.?
DECISION WITH REASONS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of our discussions the above two points are taken up for discussion together.
The de-facto complainant of the case, Sima Das, who has deposed as P.W.1, in her deposition, has stated that there was some familial dispute occurred between her and her husband and in-laws which is amicably settled between them. She has also stated that she has no allegation against the accused persons anymore and the case was filed out of misunderstanding. She also added that she has received back all her stridhan articles given at the time of her marriage.
Shanti Ranjan Das and Shipra Modak, the father and the sister of the de-facto complainant, deposed as P.W.2 and P.W. 3, respectively. They also stated that the de facto complainant had filed the case out of some familial dispute and the dispute between them is now amicably settled and the case was filed out of misunderstanding. Apart from the above three witnesses, no other witness was produced before the court on behalf of the prosecution. The de-facto complainant, who testified as P.W.1 before the court, has herself failed to corroborate the prosecution case. In the absence of any incriminating material against the accused persons and in the light of the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W. 3, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the accused persons.
Moreover, as this is a case u/s 498A of I.P.C., the court has to keep in mind the greater interest of the parties involved. When the matter has been already amicably settled between them and the complainant does not want to proceed with the case anymore then no purpose will be served by punishing the accused persons. There is no incriminating material against the accused persons on record to sustain their conviction. In such a situation I am of the opinion that the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted from this case.
Therefore, the accused persons who stood trial for the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 of I.P.C. can be acquitted as there is no material against them. Hence, it is
That the accused persons, namely, Tapas Das, China Das and Sourav Das are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s 498A/406/34 of I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. and are also discharged from their respective bail bonds and set at liberty.
Sureties are also discharged from their respective bail bonds. Thus, the case is disposed off.
Bench clerk to give note in relevant registers and C.I.S.
5TH COURT, CHINSURAH,