Deopriya Singh & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4346 Cal

23.08.2021
Ct No. 34
SL. No.14
   PA
                              CRR 1813 of 2019
                         (Through Video Conference)

                               Deopriya Singh & Anr
                                    -Vs.-
                        The State of West Bengal & Anr.



             Mr. Iqbal Hussain,

                                    ....for the petitioners
             Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.,
             Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Sr. Govt. Advocate
             Mr. Suman De
                               .... for the State.
             Ms. Aiswarjya Gupta,
                               ....for the opposite party no.2




                   The present revisional application has been preferred

             against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by

             the learned Judge, Bench-I, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in

             connection with the Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2016 where

             the learned appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the

             appeal and affirm the judgment and order dated 20th May,

             2016 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th

             Court, Calcutta in connection with the G.R. No. 873 of 2010

             (TR No. 84 of 2010).


                    Records reflect that the learned Magistrate on

             conclusion of trial was pleased to hold the present
                    2




petitioners being Deopriya Singh and Asha Devi Singh guilty

of the offence punishable under Section 498A/34 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer simple

imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-

each, i.d., to suffer further simple imprisonment for six

months.


       Records also reflect that the prosecution case was

initiated on the basis of complaint filed by Laxmi Singh with

the Officer-in-charge, Posta Police Station on 20.03.2010

alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical

torture by the petitioners when she was staying at her

matrimonial home on the plea of un-lawful demand of

further dowry. The evidence of the said Laxmi Singh who

was examined as the Prosecution Witness No.1 (PW1)

reflects that the marriage was solemnized on 14.02.2004

and the same was an arranged marriage. The witness on

15.02.2004

went to her matrimonial home at Konnagar,

Hooghly with her husband and from that day onwards she

was subjected to mental torture by her husband and in-laws

for inadequacy of dowry. The witness narrated that at the

time of marriage two gold chains, five gold finger rings, and

two rings, one necklace of gold, two bangles, one ear ring,

silver payel, komar bandh and other bangles of silver were

given by her mother and relations. Rs.1,00,000/- cash was

given to the accused person and Rs.65,000/- for purchasing

motorbike was handed over to the husband in cash. All the

golden jewelleries were taken away by the mother-in-law

and her husband asked her to follow the instructions of the

mother-in-law. On 16.02.2004 there was reception

ceremony and on that day also the in-laws misbehaved. It

has been alleged that the husband at the time of marriage

disclosed that he was BHMS doctor and one visiting card to

that effect was also handed over, however, the same

subsequently revealed to be a false one and the husband is

an un-employed person.

The defacto complainant/PW1 alleged that the

husband and her other in-laws had taken away her savings

which she earned as a teacher by way of private tuition and

also being aggrieved by her for leaving the job forced her to

work as a maid servant. Moreover, the husband used to

assault her with whatever he had nearby and she was even

abused after her child was born and on two occasions the

husband tried to kill her by pressing pillow on her mouth

but somehow she escaped. In order to save her she left the

matrimonial house with the child on 30th June, 2009 but

subsequently on August, 2009 she returned back to her

matrimonial home but after few months again the husband

started to assault and abuse her and as such she was

forced to leave her matrimonial home.

The prosecution in order to prove its case also relied

upon the evidence of four other witnesses. The learned

Magistrate assessed the oral evidence as also the document

relied upon by the prosecution being written complaint

which was marked as Ext.1; signature of the defacto

complainant/PW1 in the seizure list which was marked as

Ext.2; signature of PW3/Sujit Singh in the seizure list which

is marked as Ext.2/1; formal FIR which was marked as

Ext.3; signature of PW5 in the formal FIR which was

marked as Ext.3/1; seizure list dated 14.04.2010 which was

marked as Ext.4 and signature of PW5 in the seizure list

which was marked as Ext.4/1; seizure list dated 07.07.2010

marked as Ext.2/3 and the signature of PW6 in seizure list

was marked as Ext.2/2.

The defence basically relied upon the cross-

examination of prosecution witnesses and admitted three

documents in evidence which included the enquiry Report of

PW5 dated 06.04.2010 marked as Ext.A; prayer of issuance

of search warrant dated 11.04.2010 as Ext.B and the

signature of PW5 in the said search warrant marked as

Ext.B/1.

On close scrutiny of the judgment delivered by the

learned Magistrate on 20.05.2016 which reflects that the

learned Magistrate has taken into consideration in detail the

evidence of the defacto complainant/PW1. The evidence of

Sujit Singh, PW2; Ram Kumar Singh, PW3; Kiran Devi

Singh, PW4 who are relations of the PW1 and also the

evidence adduced by the two police witnesses being PW5

and PW6.

The learned Court in details applied the facts of the

case and the evidence so deposed before the Court along

with charge which was framed against the accused persons

and was pleased to hold that no offence has been made out

under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However,

the learned Magistrate was pleased to arrive at a finding of

guilt so far as offence under Section 498A/34 of the Indian

Penal Code is concerned and convicted the accused being

the present petitioners herein for the said offences.

The petitioner approached the learned Sessions

Court, invoking appellate jurisdiction and the Appellate

Court took into account the evidence and the observations

made by the learned Magistrate and thereafter affirmed the

order of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned

Magistrate.

Mr. Iqbal, learned Advocate appearing for the

petitioners submits that the prosecution case is full of

contradiction and the learned Courts below refused to

appreciate the same in its true spirit thereby erroneously

convicting both the petitioners. Learned Advocate further

submits that the prosecution case taken as a whole fails to

make out any case so far as the petitioner no. 2 Asha Singh

being mother-in-law, attention to this effect are drawn to the

relevant part of the observations made by the learned

Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge. It has further

been emphasized that even if the allegation against the

husband are taken to be true the same do not make out any

offence and complainant after long delay has implicated the

present petitioners by way of an afterthought with an

oblique motive for settling score with the members of the

matrimonial home.

Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, learned public

Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that so far as

ingredients of the offence are concerned the same has been

made out and there are consistency in the statement of all

the witnesses regarding demand of dowry and torture being

inflicted upon the victim. Prosecution by way of cogent

evidence has been able to prove the case beyond all

reasonable doubt and the present petitioners have failed to

shake the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned

Public Prosecutor has further stated that exaggerating the

minor inconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses

cannot in any manner reduce the spirit of the prosecution

case which unerringly point to the guilt of the accused

persons.

Ms. Aiswarjya Gupta, learned Advocate appearing

for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the victim lady has

been cheated initially by representing the husband to be a

doctor, huge amount of gold ornaments, cash were given at

the time of marriage as per the demand of in-laws family.

Defacto complainant/PW1 was assaulted initially and also

after the child was born. Further she was forced to work as

a maid servant. The consistencies in the statement of the

witness according to the learned Advocate do not call for

any interference by this Court.

I have perused the judgment delivered by the

Learned Courts below and applied my mind to the issue

whether there has been manifest error by the Courts below

while arriving at their conclusion on the basis of the

evidence which have been adduced by the parties. On a

close scrutiny of the materials I find that there were

accusations against the petitioner no.2/ mother-in-law but

the same do not constitute offence under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code, as no overact and specific act has

been divulged against her, rather the evidence

overwhelmingly point to the guilt of the petitioner no.

1/husband.

As such the order of conviction and sentence so

passed against the petitioner no.2/ Asha Devi Singh by the

learned Magistrate and affirmed by the Appellate Court is

hereby set aside. The petitioner no.2/Asha Devi Singh is

acquitted of all the charges.

Now so far as the petitioner no.1/Deopriya Singh is

concerned, even the sole testimony of PW1 is sufficient to

convict him. As such no interference is called for in respect

of the order of finding of guilt and conviction so far as he is

concerned.

However, the sentence of three years simple

imprisonment so passed upon the petitioner no.1 seems to

be very excessive in the background of facts and

circumstances of the case. Having regard to the nature of

the allegations made against him and the fact that the

petitioner has been suffering from mental agony for more

than ten years as he has been facing the trial and following

the Courts, I am of the view that the sentence so imposed by

the learned Magistrate be reduced to a period of three

months with the fine and default clause remaining

unaltered. The petitioner no.1 is directed to surrender

within a period of seven days from the date for serving the

sentence. If he is on bail his bail bond stands cancelled.

Accordingly, CRR 1813 of 2019 is partly allowed.

Pending applications, if any, is consequently

disposed of. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.

LCR be sent to learned courts below. Copy of the

order sent to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 13th

Court, Calcutta for execution in respect of the petitioner

no.1.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)