Recently, the Calcutta High Court dealt with a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of a husband under Sections 498A and 306 IPC for allegedly subjecting his wife to cruelty and abetting her suicide. The Court examined whether the prosecution had been able to prove the essential ingredients of cruelty and abetment necessary to sustain the conviction.
Brief Facts
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased woman alleging that after marriage, she was continuously subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and his sister. It was alleged that she frequently informed her family members about the harassment and was ultimately found hanging in her matrimonial home after being assaulted. Based on these allegations, a criminal case was registered and the trial court convicted the accused persons under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the prosecution case was based mainly on suspicion and hearsay evidence and that no direct act of instigation to commit suicide had been proved. It was further argued that there was no prior complaint of cruelty or dowry demand and that the medical evidence indicated suicidal hanging without signs of physical assault. The Petitioner also relied on the testimony of the daughter of the deceased, who stated that relations between her parents were cordial.
Contentions of the State
The State argued that the evidence of family members and other witnesses clearly established continuous physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon the deceased. It was contended that the harassment became unbearable and drove the victim to commit suicide, thereby justifying the conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.
Observation of the Court
The High Court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC for sustaining a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The Court noted that most witnesses made only vague and omnibus allegations regarding cruelty and torture without providing specific details of any direct instigation. It further found that no prior complaint had ever been lodged during the long years of marriage and even at the time of inquest no allegation of torture was raised by the family members. The Court also considered the medical evidence significant as the post-mortem report disclosed only a ligature mark and no external injury suggestive of physical assault.
While discussing the law on abetment of suicide, the Court quoted with approval that, “Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.” The Court further reiterated that “mere harassment… cannot be sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abating the commission of suicide.” Referring to another precedent, the Court observed, “Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act.” However, the Court found that no such clinching evidence existed in the present case.
The Court also attached considerable importance to the testimony of the daughter of the deceased, who stated that relations between her parents were cordial and alleged that she had earlier been tutored to make incriminating statements. According to the Court, “the evidence of daughter gives rise to a different Version than that of the de facto complainant which completely demolishes the prosecution case.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed against the appellant under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide and cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Petitioner was acquitted of all charges and discharged from the bail bonds forthwith.
Case Title: Bikash Chandra Paul v. The State of West Bengal
Case No.: CRA 445 of 2009
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Mr. Somnath Adhikary, Ms. Madhurai Sinha & Ms. Upasana Banerjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Datta & Mr. Asraf Mandal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
