CRA No. 260 of 2016
Soumen Das Anr.
The State of West Bengal
The Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Chattopadhyay
For the Appellant : Mr. Debasish Roy,
Mr. Jayanta Narayan
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
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
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
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
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.