The Calcutta High Court partly allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31/07/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, corresponding to the Sessions Trial whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months as well as fine of Rs.10,000/-. The Court observed that sweeping and general allegations cannot be relied upon to conclude that an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been perpetrated.
Brief Facts:
The wife of the Appellant being the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint on 31/05/2016 alleging demand of dowry, torture and attempt to murder against her husband, the present Appellant, and the mother-in-law. The written complaint was received and registered under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code. An investigation was initiated after the completion of which charge sheet was filed under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was triable by the Court of Sessions. After commitment, charges were framed under Sections 498A/323/324/307/34. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforesaid and acquitted the mother-in-law. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied the instant appeal is preferred.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that no material evidence is there to invite convictions under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the prosecution failed to establish any of the charges leveled against the Appellant. There was a failure to appreciate the evidence and apply the correct principle of law by the trial court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was correctly passed on the proper application of law and perfect appreciation of evidence. The Learned Counsel for the State relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 SCC 582] to fortify his argument.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the complainant stated in evidence that she was assaulted and tortured on demand of Rs. 50,000/-; she was beaten on chick by the Appellant; from time to time, she was tortured; she was about to be killed on a railway bridge by the Appellant only rescued by two persons. There is no specific instance of any torture, assault, or harassment. There is no mention of any point or period of time of such torture or harassment. The elder brother of the de-facto complainant stated in his evidence that the Appellant used to assault the de-facto complainant on consuming liquor. He did not mention that there was any demand for money on the part of the Appellant.
The Court observed that Cruelty contemplated in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is different from day-to-day bickering between the husband and wife. Sweeping and general allegations cannot be relied upon to conclude that an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been perpetrated. The Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. There are latches on the part of the Trial Court in appreciation of evidence.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, partly allowing the appeal, held that the conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed but the conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code stands upheld.
Case Title: Ranjan Das vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sugato Majumdar
Case no.: CRA 16 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Hillol Saha Podder
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty and Mr. Saurav Ganguly
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
