IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
C.R.A. NO. 608 of 2013 [renumbered as CRA 68/2017]
Somenath Jana ……………….. Appellant
-vs-
The State of West Bengal………Respondent
With
C.R.A No. 765 of 2013
Bijay Krishna Chowdhury…………….Appellant
-vs-
The State of West Bengal Ors. ……..Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Milon Mukherjee….Sr. Advocate
In CRA 608 of 2013 : Mr. Biswajit Manna…..Advocate
For the Appellant : Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal….Sr. Advocate
In CRA 765 of 2013 : Mr. Kaushik Gupta……Advocate
: Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi….Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee…..Ld. P.P.
In CRA 608 of 2013 : Mr. Saryati Datta…….Advocate
CRA 765 of 2013 : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury…Advocate
Judgement on : 22.06.2018
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:
1. Both these appeals arise from the same order and are taken up for hearing
in terms of the earlier orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. These appeals are
directed against the judgment and order dated 20 July, 2013 passed by the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in
Sessions Trial No.05(07)/2011 arising out of Sessions Case No.07(01)/2011. In
CRA 608 of 2013, the appeal is preferred against the conviction of the appellant
husband, Somenath Jana under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.
The connected appeal being CRA No.765 of 2013 has been preferred against the
same judgment and order insofar as it acquits the other accused persons i.e. the
in-laws of the deceased daughter-in-law.
2. By the impugned order the appellant husband has been convicted of
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and
has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence
under Section 498A and to pay a fine of Rs.2000, in default of payment of fine to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant husband has also been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and has been directed to pay a
fine of Rs.5000, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
of the offence punishable under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. Both the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. Shorn of details, the case of the prosecution against the appellant husband
and the other accused persons being his parents Namita Jana and Kanailal Jana
i.e. mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively is to the effect
that the appellant husband was married to one Minakshi and she was subjected
to cruelty and dowry demand by her husband and her in-laws. It is alleged that
as a result of torture she died and her death was caused by hanging amounting
to dowry death for which all three accused persons have been charged under
Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. On 14 October, 2010, Bijay Krishna Chowdhury, father of the deceased
Minakshi lodged a complaint with Barasat P.S. on the basis of which the First
Information Report was drawn up and Barasat P.S. Case No.1848 dated 14
October, 2010 was registered. In the written complaint filed by Bijay Krishna
Chowdhury it was alleged that his daughter was married to the appellant
husband and out of their wedlock two sons were born. After six months of their
marriage Minakshi was subjected to torture, cruelty and dowry demands. The
specific allegation in the complaint is that Minakshi was subjected to mental
torture by her parents-in-law and Somenath never protested the torture by his
parents. Minakshi would on occasions visit the complainant and his family. On
14 October, 2010 at 6.00 pm, the complainant was informed by the appellant
husband that Minakshi has died due to hanging and he immediately rushed to
the matrimonial house. On arrival, the complainant found Minakshi lying in the
bed and a piece of curtain cloth was hanging on the ceiling fan. It is also alleged
in the complaint that certain gold articles, furniture and cash etc., were given to
the accused persons. It is an admitted fact and this would also be borne out
inter-alia from the post-mortem report that Minakshi had committed suicide and
her death was caused due to hanging.
5. Upon receipt of the complaint the police investigated the case and
submitted a charge-sheet against the three accused persons. The case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, North 24 Parganas and thereafter
transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Barasat for trial and
disposal. Thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 304B and 498A of the
IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and a
number of documents had been proved as exhibits. The defence did not adduce
any evidence. The defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false
implication. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., after recording of
examination was over the accused persons reiterated that they were innocent
and they have been falsely implicated by the father of the deceased. In conclusion
of the trial, the Trial Judge by a judgment and order dated 20th July, 2013
convicted and sentenced the appellant husband as morefully stated hereinabove.
The other accused persons being the in-laws of the deceased were acquitted of
the charges levelled against them.
7. Hence, the present appeals.
8. Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in CRA
608 of 2013 strenuously argued that in convicting the appellant husband the
Trial Court primarily held that the appellant was guilty of the offence under
Section 304B of the IPC. He further contended that there is nothing in the FIR to
implicate the appellant husband. The only allegation against the appellant
husband is that the appellant husband was a mute spectator to the alleged
cruelty inflicted upon Minakshi. He further contended that the FIR is completely
silent about the alleged demand of Rs.50,000 in cash by the appellant husband
or his family members. The entire story of the alleged demand, according to him,
was belated and an afterthought. He further contended that the entire evidence
of Debasish Bhattacharyya (PW-3) was neither credible nor believable. In
particular, PW-3 had spoken about the demand for a four-wheeler car which was
not even mentioned by the complainant, father of the deceased (PW-1). Similarly,
the evidence of Sanjoy Chakraborty (PW-4) was also not credible. Significantly,
PW-4 had deposed of a Salish (mediation) being held which was not a fact stated
by the father of the deceased PW-1, either in the evidence or in the FIR. Mr.
Mukherjee further contended that the evidence of all the witnesses in the locality
was hearsay. Mr. Mukherjee laid much emphasis on the cross-examination of
PW-3 (Debasish Bhattacharyya) who had stated that “our locality is known as
Chakrabortypara. Myself and the men of the locality were annoyed with the
accused persons all along. We considered them as inferior class of people”. Mr.
Mukherjee also contended that the entire evidence of all the local residents being
PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10 respectively was neither credible nor
convincing and should not have been given any weight. There is no case made
out either in the FIR or the evidence of any demand for dowry or cruelty. There
are no circumstances relating to torture and the entire case made out for dowry
is weak, unconvincing and nebulous. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the Trial
Court failed to appreciate that there was any incident of dowry demand or cruelty
and the entire evidence in this regard is vague, bereft of particulars, based on
surmises and conjectures. There was no case of torture, leave alone a continuous
case of torture which was been made out either in the FIR or in the evidence of
any of the witnesses.
9. Mr. Shiladitya Sanyal, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant in CRA
765 of 2013 argued that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the in-laws i.e.
Namita Jana and Kanailal Jana of the deceased. He submitted that there was
sufficient evidence before the Trial Court to convict the in-laws of the deceased.
He further submitted that both in the FIR and the evidence there was
overwhelming evidence to convict the in-laws. He placed reliance on the FIR and
the evidence to show that there were specific allegations of cruelty, torture and
dowry demand made out against both the in-laws. He further submitted that his
appeal should be allowed and the in-laws should also be convicted of the offences
under Section 304B and Section 498A.
10. Before addressing the rival contentions of the parties I think it is
vital to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses in this proceeding.
PW-1 (Bijay Krishna Chowdhury), is the father of the deceased Minakshi
Jana and the de facto complainant in this case. He deposed that his daughter
was married to the appellant on 19.01.2006. After her marriage she resided in
matrimonial home with her husband and his parents i.e. Kanai Lal Jana and
Namita Jana. Two sons were born to her out of wedlock. For the first six months,
Minakshi and her husband were very happy and lived peacefully in the
matrimonial home. He deposed that with the passage of time the accused
persons namely Kainailal Jana and Namita Jana used to inflict cruelty on his
daughter Minakshi Jana. In particular reference to the appellant husband, this
witness further deposed that, the appellant husband did not protest to such
torture, on the contrary, he followed their advise. He further deposed that, the
accused persons used to ask his deceased daughter to bring some cash from her
father’s house. The accused persons on one occasion forcibly took cash of
Rs.50,000 from this witness. He further deposed that on 14 October, 2010 i.e.
within four years ten months of their marriage he was informed by the appellant
husband that Minakshi had hanged herself. He along with others went to the
matrimonial house of Minakshi and found his daughter lying on the bed and a
short cloth of curtain hanging from the ceiling. He lodged a complaint with the
Barasat Police Station. He identified the signature on the FIR (Ext. 1), the police
made an inquest over the dead body which was signed by him. He was
interrogated by the police. In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not
stated in the FIR the reason why any of the accused persons inflicted torture on
the deceased. He had also not stated in the FIR that he had given Rs.50,000 in
cash to the appellant husband. He further stated that he had not complained to
any authority or police station or any other social organisation of the infliction of
torture or cruelty on his daughter by any of the accused persons. He further
stated that he had not shown any kind of fear or threats the accused persons
with the help of political leaders. He stated that the marriage between the
appellant husband and Minakshi was negotiated and arranged with his
permission. He further deposed that he was in regular touch with his daughter
and she would visit him during the Puja holidays. He stated that his daughter
last visited him during Puja vacations in 2010. He stated that his grand sons are
now residing with him.
PW-2 (Lakshan Tripathi), was the Assistant Sub-Inspector. At the relevant
point of time he was posted at Barasat P.S. He deposed that he received a
complaint from Bijay Krishna Chowdhury and started Barasat P.S. Case No.1848
dated 14.10.2010. He had filed the formal FIR (Ext.1). He had performed the
inquest over the dead body of the deceased Minakshi Jana. He identified the
inquest report (Ext.3). In cross-examination, he deposed, that he had no personal
knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the instant case but knew the
meaning of dowry.
PW-3 (Debasish Bhattacharyya), is a local resident of ‘Chakrabortypara’
where the deceased and the appellant were residing. He deposed that he knew
Minakshi Jana. He deposed that Minakshi came to the matrimonial house which
was near his house. He further deposed that Minakshi was not happy in her
matrimonial house and was debarred from mixing with others by the accused
persons. He deposed that he had heard sounds of crying of Minakshi Jana at
night. He deposed that the accused persons used to ask her bring cash from her
father’s house. He deposed that the father of Minakshi had given a four wheeler
car to the accused. He deposed that on the date of the incident he had come to
know at night that Minakshi had hanged herself. He had identified all the
accused persons in the dock. In cross-examination, he deposed that he came to
know Bijay Krishna Chowdhury the father of the deceased on the date of the
death of Minakshi Jana. He deposed that he had never threatened the accused
persons nor made any financial demand on any of the accused persons. He
deposed that the accused persons had come to the locality after purchasing their
house. He deposed that his locality is commonly known as ‘Chakrabortypara’ and
he and the other residents of the locality were annoyed with the accused persons
all along after they shifted into ‘Chakrabortypara’. He stated that “we considered
them as an inferior class of people”. He deposed that he had never filed any
complaint nor gone to any authority in respect of torture or cruelty meted out to
the deceased or the fact that she had been debarred from mixing with others by
the accused persons. He further stated that he had not invited to the marriage of
Minakshi and Somenath.
PW-4 (Sanjoy Chakraborty), is also a local resident and neighbour living
in the same locality as the accused persons. He identified all the accused
persons. He stated that he knew all the accused persons. He stated that he also
knew the deceased Minakshi Jana. He stated that he had heard that Minakshi
had committed suicide. He stated that the accused persons would torture
Minakshi and demand cash and dowry. He stated that several salish (mediation)
meetings were held in the locality over the issue of cruelty and dowry meted out
to Minakshi on diverse occasions. He stated that he had tried to convince the
accused persons not to commit any act of atrocities or make any demand cash or
dowry upon Minakshi at such salishes. He stated that he had heard from the
father of Minakshi that he had given cash to the accused. In cross-examination,
he stated that, he had never told the police that he had heard from the father of
Minakshi that he gave cash to the accused. He said that he was not the head
man of his village. He stated he had not lodged any complaint in respect of the
demands made out of Minakshi before any police station or any authority. He
stated that he had been trying to evict the accused persons from the locality for a
long time.
PW-5 (Pallab Chakraborty), is a colleague of Bijay Krishna Chowdhury
and a signatory to the inquest report. He identified his signature on the inquest
report.
PW-6 (Santanu Chowdhury), is a cousin of the deceased. He stated that
Minakshi had been murdered by the members of her matrimonial house and he
reiterated the case made out in the FIR.
PW-7 (Pinku Chakraborty), is a resident of the locality. He deposed that
he knew Minakshi. He stated that he had heard that there was dispute between
the deceased and Somenath which was due to the demand for money. He
identified all the accused persons. In cross-examination, he stated that he was
involved in an altercation on two or three occasions with the appellant husband
in the locality.
PW-8 (Tapan Roy), is a local resident. He deposed that he knew Minakshi
Jana as she belonged to the locality. He was present at the time of marriage. He
came to know about the death of Minakshi “on the day of Saptami Puja in 2010”.
He deposed that he had heard that Minakshi had reported to the local club that
she had been tortured on many occasions. He also deposed that he heard that
her in laws used to pressurize Minakshi to bring money. He identified all the
accused persons present in the Court. In cross-examination, he stated that he
had a truck and coal business and he remained busy throughout the day.
PW-9 (Dr. Supriti Garai), is the doctor who was posted at Barasat District
Hospital at the relevant point of time and conducted the post-mortem on the
dead body of Minakshi. She had deposed that the death had been caused due to
hanging as stated in the post-mortem. She deposed that she had prepared the
post-mortem report and identified the same (Ext.7).
PW-10 (Ajoy Gopal Nag), is a local resident and was present at the morgue
when the inquest was conducted. He had signed as the witness to the inquest
report. He identified his signature in the inquest report.
PW-11 (Uttam Ghosh), was a police constable associated with the Barasat
P.S and had carried the dead body of Minakshi to the morgue. He identified the
dead body to the doctor for post-mortem examination.
PW-12 (Shib Sankar Singha), is the Sub-Inspector of police who was
posted with the Barasat P.S at the relevant point of time. He had carried on the
investigation in the case being Barasat P.S. case No.1848 dated 14.10.2010. He
had gone to the place of occurrence of death on 14.10.2010 and recorded the
statements of the available witnesses on that day. He prepared a rough sketch
map (Ext.8). He had also seized a number of articles (Ext.4 5). He arrested all
the accused persons and had received all the documentation in connection with
the case. He had recorded all the statements of the witnesses and conducted the
investigation.
In the light of the aforesaid evidence and by a pain staking judgment the
Trial Judge held that in the light of the evidence of PW-1, the father of the
deceased duly corroborated by the evidence of the local residents being PWs-3, 4,
7 and 8, the charges under Section 304B and Section 498A of the IPC were
proved against the appellant husband. Accordingly, the Trial Judge held the
appellant husband guilty of the offences under Section 304B and 498A.
11. At the outset, the relevant provisions of law for reference which arise
for consideration in this case are extracted hereunder: Section 304B, Section
306, Section 498A of the IPC, Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and
Section 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
S.304B. Dowry death. – (1) Where the death of a woman is
caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such
death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or
relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall
have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961, (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall, not be less than seven
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
S.498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. – Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand.
S.2 Definition of ‘Dowry’. In this Act, ‘dowry’ means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly –
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage;
or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other
person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at
or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the
marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr
in the case of persons to whom the Muslim personal law
(Shariat) applies.
S.113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman. – When the question is whether the
commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that
she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from
the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative
of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may
presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the
case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by
such relative of her husband.
S.113B. Presumption as to dowry death. – When the
question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of
a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for , or in connection with, any demand for dowry,
the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry
death.
12. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304B of the IPC,
commonly known as dowry death the main ingredients of the offence to be
established are (a) that soon before the death the deceased she was subjected to
cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry, (b) the death of
the deceased woman was caused by any burn or bodily injury or some other
circumstance which was not normal, (c) such death occurs within seven years
from the date of her marriage, (d) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, (e) such cruelty or
harassment should be for or in connection with demand of dowry, and (f) it
should be established that such cruelty and harassment was made soon before
her death. Kashmir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2013 SC 1039. Therefore,
in each case the Court has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the
death of the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection
between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment and the death.
Similarly, to attract the ingredients of Section 306 the basic constituents
thereof are suicidal death and abetment thereof.
13. Furthermore, in making out a case under Section 498A it is essential
that a woman is subjected to cruelty which would include as defined in the
Explanation (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
14. It is also well settled that in order for the presumption under Section
113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to apply it must be shown that the
husband or any of the relatives had subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before
her unnatural death within 7 years of marriage. Similarly, for the applicability of
Section 113B the presumption shall only be raised on the proof of the following
essentials requirements: (1) The question before the court must be whether the
accused has committed dowry death of a woman. (This means that the
presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under
Section 304B IPC). (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her
death. Per Sinha, J. Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2008)16 SCC 155 at
paragraph 17.
15. Ordinarily, as a principle of law it is well settled “throughout the web
of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is
the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to …the
defence of insanity, and subject also to any statutory exception.” These are
the classic words of Lord Sankey L.C. in Woolmington vs. D.PP 1935
Appeal Cases 462. There is a presumption of innocence in all criminal
trials and the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. The basic principle of
criminal jurisprudence is that the accused is presumed to be innocent
until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This principle has stood
the test of time and has been repeatedly reiterated and affirmed by all
Courts in India as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as recent as
in the decision reported in Krishnegowda and Others vs. State of
Karnataka (2017) 13SCC 98 at para 26. However, the charges in the
instant case involve applicability of a reverse burden of proof on the
accused in the form of statutory presumptions under Section 113A and
Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
16. In order for the presumptions to apply it is founded on the proof of
cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand
for dowry by the person or persons charged with the offence soon before her
death. The presumption as to dowry death will be only triggered upon proof of the
fact that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in
connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that to in the
reasonable continguity of death. Such proof is therefore a legislatively mandated
pre-requisite before the statutory presumption of the offence of dowry death by
the person charged there with can be activated.
17. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions thus stipulates the
burden of the prosecution to unassailably substantiate the ingredients of the two
offences by direct and convincing evidence so as to invoke the presumption
engrafted under Section 113B of the Act against accused. Proof of cruelty or
harassment by the husband or his relatives or the person charged with it is thus
a sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged
within the ambit thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent,
coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused either of
the aforementioned offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge of the
presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.
18. As has been held in Baijnath vs. State Madhya Pradesh (2017)1
SCC 101 at paragraph 31 “The legislative primature of relieving the prosecution of
the rigour of the proof of the often practically inaccessible recesses of life within the
guarded confines of a matrimonial home and of replenishing the consequential
void, by according a presumption against the person charged, cannot be overeased
to gloss over and condone its failure to prove credibly, the basic facts enumerated
in the sections involved, lest justice is the casualty.”
19. “The fundamental and vital question that the Court has to ask itself
and find a solid answer to, is whether the evidence even preponderantly proves
that the appellant had treated the deceased with cruelty connected with dowry
demands. It is only if the answer is in the affirmative will the court have to weigh
the evidence produced by the appellant to discharge beyond reasonable doubt, the
assumption of his deemed guilt.” Sher Singh vs. State of Haryana at (2015)3
SCC 724 at para 25.
20. In the aforesaid backdrop, I will now examine the rival contentions
of the parties, the evidence and the impugned judgment. It is a fact that in the
First Information Report there are only vague and general allegations bereft of
any particulars against the accused persons. It is true that as a proposition of
law the FIR does not have to be an encyclopaedia of facts nor is it a substantive
piece of evidence. However, in the present case the complainant i.e. father-in-law
had not mentioned the factum of a cash demand of Rs.50,000 being made in the
FIR. It is a fact that in the FIR the complainant had mentioned that gifts in the
form of cash aggregating to Rs.50,000 had been given. But, this was in the form
of National Savings Certificate and not cash. It is only for the first time in the
evidence of the complainant (PW-1) that he mentioned that a sum of Rs.50,000 in
cash had been forcibly taken by the accused persons but there are no
particulars, date or time of such demand. The other statement of PW-1 that “I
used to give cash to my daughter for giving them” is vague and bereft of
particulars. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the
effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned. This
ingredient is conspicuously missing in the case of the prosecution.
21. The evidence of all the local residents appears to be vague and
suspicious and has to be assessed in the background of the fact that the locality
where the accused persons used to reside was known as “Chakrabortypara” and
the persons in that locality were annoyed with the accused persons all along and
they considered them an inferior the class of people. The evidence of the local
residents should therefore be looked upon with caution. On the one hand PW-3
deposed that the deceased was not allowed by the accused persons to meet with
the local residents. However, in the same breath PW-3 goes on to depose that he
had knowledge that the accused persons used to make demands from the
deceased to bring cash from her father’s house.
22. The evidence of the other local residents PWs-3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 is
clearly based on hearsay. They all deposed that they had heard from others but
not the victim, of the demands of cash being made from the accused persons.
PW-3 did give an instance of a demand of a four wheeler car being made from the
father of Minakshi but surprisingly this evidence was not corroborated nor
substantiated by the complainant himself. Similarly, in the evidence of PW-4
(Sanjoy Chakraborty), a local resident, he deposed that there was several Salish
(mediation meetings) held in the locality over the alleged issue of cruelty and
dowry demands on several occasions. Ironically, this fact was also not brought
out by the complainant either in the FIR or his examination-in-chief. It is to be
remembered, that in the normal course, if a woman is being tortured and
harassed and mediation meetings were being held in the locality she would not
remain reticent of the state of affairs and would necessarily repeatedly inform her
family this is especially before she takes the extreme step of taking her own life.
This fact was also not substantiated by the complainant. There are several
inconsistencies, contradictions and discrepancies with the statements of the
complainant and the other witnesses who were primarily local residents where
the deceased had her matrimonial house.
23. As stated by Bentham, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice.” It
is the duty of every court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record.
In the light of the evidence in the instant case it is apparent that all the local
residents had an animosity or ill feeling towards the accused persons since the
locality was commonly known as “Chakrabortypara” and admittedly the accused
persons were outsiders to the locality. The evidence of all the local witnesses
draws me to the irresistible conclusion that their evidence cannot be a basis to
convict the appellant husband. I am of the view that the evidence of the local
witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions. As
has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. vs. Anil
Singh 1988 (Supp) SCC 686 it is not uncommon for witnesses to add
embroidery to the prosecution story. There are inconsistencies, exaggerations
and embellishments in the evidence of the local residents which makes their
evidence unbelievable. Apart from the general allegations in the same tone
ingeminated with parrot like similarity there is nothing in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses which substantiates the allegations of cruelty, harassment
or dowry demand.
24. The Trial Court at internal page No.20 of the judgment proceeds on
the basis as if both the preconditions of cruelty and dowry demand had been
satisfied. However, the evidence of the parties does not substantiate either of
these conditions. The cumulative consideration of the overall evidence on the
facet of dowry and cruelty is conspicuously absent. The prosecution in my view
has failed to prove this indispensable component of the offences beyond
reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial house and
that to within 7 years of marriage is not ipso facto sufficient to bring home the
charge under Section 304B or 498A of the IPC against them. The benefit of the
deficiency in proof logically would be available to the persons charged. The Trial
Court failed to appreciate that there was no evidence brought on record to show
that cruelty or harassment or dowry demand had been meted out to Minakshi.
There is nothing on record to show that “soon before the occurrence” of her death
there was any cruelty or harassment and only in that case the presumption
could be made applicable. The Trial Court glossed over the proximity test which
is an essential requirement for the sections to apply. I am thus of the view that
the conclusions of the Trial Court do not constitute a plausible view on the
materials on record and cannot be sustained.
25. On overall scrutiny of the evidence as a whole in my view the
conviction of the appellant husband on the basis of the materials on record is not
justified. To reiterate, the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredients
of cruelty, harassment or dowry demand by direct and cogent evidence thereby
disentitling itself to the benefit of the statutory presumption available under
Section 113A or Section 113B of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal
being CRA No.608 of 2013 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
26. For the foregoing reasons, I am also of the view that there is no
convincing or clear evidence which would implicate the accused persons of the
offence under Section 304B, 306 or 498A as stated hereinbefore. Needless to
mention there is also a complete absence of the ingredient “soon before her
death” in the present case. In order to attract the provisions of Section 304B one
of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that
“soon before her death” she was subjected to cruelty and harassment “in
connection with the demand of dowry”. There is no evidence whatsoever that any
of the accused persons had committed any specific act of cruelty or harassment
soon before the death of Minakshi. Accordingly, the case made out by the
prosecution is neither true nor acceptable.
27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I set aside the conviction and
the sentence imposed on the appellant husband. The appellant husband is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant shall be released
forthwith if he was not involved in any other case.
28. The appeal being CRA No.765 of 2013 preferred against the
judgment and order of acquittal is dismissed. For the reasons morefully narrated
hereinabove, there is no direct or cogent evidence to implicate either of the in-
laws in the death of the deceased. A cumulative consideration of the overall
evidence on the facets of cruelty, harassment or dowry vis-à-vis the victim’s in-
laws leaves me unconvinced about the truthfulness of the charges qua the
accused persons. There are no specific allegations of either cruelty or harassment
or dowry demands in so far as the in-laws are concerned. As discussed earlier,
there is also no proximate or live link between the vague allegations of cruelty,
harassment or dowry demand and the death of the victim. This ingredient is
conspicuously absent in the case sought to be made out by the prosecution.
29. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed off.
30. A copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent
back to the Court below at once. The certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)