SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amal Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal on 14 January, 2020

Form No. J(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLTE JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi

The Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh

CRA 785 of 2015
Amal Ghosh
-vs-
The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Kushal Paul,
Ms. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu)

For the State : Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Ld. A.P.P.,
Mr. Bibhaswan Bhattacharya

Heard on : 14.01.2020

Judgment on : 14.01.2020

Joymalya Bagchi, J.:

On the Navami of Durga Puja in 2012, when everyone was engaged in

festivities, an unfortunate 19-year-old girl put an end to her torture by hanging

herself from a ceiling fan at her matrimonial home. Appellant before her us is her

husband.

Prosecution case as unfolded in the First Information Report lodged by

Haradhan Pandit (PW 3), father of the victim girl, is to the effect that his daughter

was married to the appellant on 26 Sravan 1419 B.S. according to Hindu rites and

customs. As per demand of appellant and other accuseds i.e. in-laws of the victim

housewife Rupees 1 lakh in cash, five tollas of gold ornaments and other articles

were given as dowry. Soon thereafter the appellant and other in-laws subjected the

victim housewife to torture on further demands of dowry. She was not even given
2

proper food. Unable to bear the torture, in the morning of 23.10.2012 she committed

suicide. Around 11:00 am her father (PW 3) was informed that his daughter is no

more. Hearing the news he along with his wife and others went to her matrimonial

home and found her hanging from the ceiling fan in her bedroom. Pursuant to the

written complaint lodged by PW 3, Gurap Police Station Case No.85/12 dated

23.10.12

under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code was registered for

investigation against the appellant and one Alok Ghosh, Renuka Ghosh and Anjali

Santra i.e. brother-in-law, mother-in-law of the victim housewife and the

matchmakers respectively. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 498A/304B/34 of

the IPC and under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a

number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned

judgment and order dated 08.10.2015 and 09.10.2015 convicted and sentenced the

appellant under section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC; both the

sentences to run concurrently, as aforesaid. By the self-same judgement and order

the trial court was pleased to acquit the other accused persons of the charges

levelled against them.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution has

failed to prove torture upon the victim housewife over further demands of dowry.

Evidence in that regard is woefully vague and non-specific. In view of the fact that

PW 3 is a daily labour it is argued that he lacked financial wherewithal to pay
3

Rs.1,00,000/- and 5 bhories of gold ornaments as dowry. On the other hand, there is

ample evidence that relationship between the family members were cordial. Victim

visited the parental home with the appellant (her husband) on two occasions and

gifts were exchanged between the families prior to Durga Puja. Hence ingredients of

the offence under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code are not proved.

It was further argued that the victim committed suicide due to depression as

the prior marriage of the appellant had been suppressed from her by her own

parents. While accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them,

appellant has been convicted on the self-same evidence. Hence, he is entitled to an

order of acquittal.

Learned counsel for the State argued that P.W 2 and 3, parents of the victim

girl, have succinctly narrated the torture meted out to her over further demands of

dowry. She had informed her parents about such incidents over telephone. Other

prosecution witnesses including P.W 4, a neighbour, have also corroborated their

version in Court.

In the backdrop of such evidence relating to cruelty on the housewife over

demands of dowry, suicide of the latter within four months of marriage at the

matrimonial home clearly establishes the offences against the appellant. Evidence

has also come on record that the appellant used to ill-treat his earlier wife. In view of

the materials on record, he does not stand on the same footing with the co-accused

persons who were acquitted and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

P.Ws 2 and 3 are the parents of the victim housewife. They have unequivocally

stated at the time of the marriage between the appellant and the victim, a sum of

rupees one lakh, five bhories of gold and other articles were given as dowry as per

demand. After marriage, victim was subjected to torture by the appellant and other

in-laws, over further demands of dowry. She complained about such fact to her
4

parents over telephone. On the fateful day, P.W 3 was informed over telephone with

regard to the death of his daughter. They rushed to the matrimonial home and found

her daughter lying dead at the verandah. P.W 3 lodged written complaint which was

scribed by his nephew, P.W 1. Police seized plastic chair and a saree from the place

of occurrence. P.W 3 signed on the seizure list. Evidence of the parents of the victim

girl is corroborated by her cousin and scribe P.W 1, her brother P.W 6, her aunt and

uncle, P.W 7 and 8 respectively. All these witnesses have spoken in unison with

regard to payment of Rs. 1 lakh, five bhories of gold and other articles as dowry as

per demand at the time of marriage. They also deposed with regard to torture upon

the victim owing to further demands of dowry. These witnesses have been extensively

cross-examined on behalf of the defence about the lack of financial capacity of P.W 3

to give costly gifts i.e. Rs. 1 lakh and five bhories gold as dowry as he is a day

labourer. In cross examination, P.W 3 has categorically explained the source of funds

for giving such expensive gift. He stated he owns 2/3 bighas of landed proprety and 4

bighas as a share cropper. He had sold 800 bags of potatos and 40 bags of paddy to

procure Rs. 1 lakh.

In the light of the aforesaid evidence clearly disclosing the source of money for

giving dowry, I have no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence with regard to

giving of dowry as per demand of the accused persons at the time of marriage.

Further demand of dowry and torture on the housewife owing to inability of P.W 3 to

meet such demand was severely criticised on the ground that the prosecution

evidence lacks specification with regard to the date and time of such demand and

consequential torture. One ought not to be unmindful of the fact that the victim had

barely survived for four months at the matrimonial home. During this period on

repeated occasions over telephone she communicated her woes to her parents. Other

prosecution witnesses including P.W 4, a neighbour have corroborated such
5

evidence. Evidence on record, therefore, clearly shows that the demand of dowry was

a continuing affair which ultimately drove the victim to commit suicide.

In the backdrop of such evidence on record, it is absurd to reject prosecution

case on the premise specific dates of demand of dowry and/or torture have not been

narrated by the witnesses. It was a continuing event occurring on a day to day basis

in the matrimonial life of the victim.

It has been strenuously argued that reason for suicide is not torture in

connection with demands of dowry as proposed by the prosecution but the fact that

a previous marriage of the appellant had been suppressed from the victim girl.

Suggestion in this regard has been squarely denied by the witnesses. No evidence is

also forthcoming to probabilise such desperate hypothesis engineered by the defence.

On the other hand, evidence of P.W 11, the mother of the earlier wife of the

appellant, shows that the appellant used to assault and torture his previous wife

also. Bad conduct of the appellant in his previous marriage is, therefore, proved

against him.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am convinced that the evidence on

record clearly establishes the ingredients of the offence of dowry death beyond doubt

against the appellant. Victim committed suicide within four months of marriage.

There was continuos torture on the victim over further demands of dowry and the

live link between such torture and her ultimate unnatural demise is clear and

palpable.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, it was incumbent on the appellant to rebut

the statutory presumption under section 113B of the Evidence Act which he has

singularly failed to do. Desperate plea that the victim committed suicide as previous

marriage of the appellant had been supressed from her is not born out from the
6

records of the case. Finally, it has been argued as the co-accused persons have been

acquitted, similar benefit ought to be extended to the appellant.

I am unable to accept such contention. Appellant is the husband of the victim

housewife and the latter committed suicide in the room which was occupied by the

couple. Appellant had tortured his earlier wife also.

Keeping in mind the aforesaid conspectus of circumstances, I am of the

opinion that the appellant does not stand on the same footing with the acquitted

accused persons. Ample evidence of torture of the housewife by the acquitted

accuseds have come on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, I have considerable

doubt with regard to the correctness of such conclusion. However, in the absence of

an appeal against their acquittal, I refrain from making any further comment with

regard thereto. Therefore, I am loath to extend the benefit of such unmerited

acquittal to the appellant in the facts of the case.

Conviction and sentence of the appellant is, accordingly upheld.

Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry

and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of

428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once.

Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied

expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.

I agree.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation