Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mekail Sk vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 8361 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8361 Cal
Judgement Date : 15 December, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mekail Sk vs Unknown on 15 December, 2022

15.12.2022

BR

CRR 2245 of 2003

In the matter of : Mekail Sk

Mr. Abhijit Basu, Mr. A.K.Das .... For the Appellant

Mr. N.P.Agarwal, Mr. Pratick Bose .... For the State

This criminal revision assails the judgment

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Berhampore on 22nd July, 2003 in Criminal Appeal no. 2

of 1999 affirming thereby the judgment passed by

learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lalbagh,

Murshidabad in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1998

convicting the appellant for committing an offence

under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code

sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2

years for committing offence under Section 498A of

the IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- , 7 years rigorous

imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for

committing offence under Section 306 of the IPC. Briefly stated one Ershad Ali informed the

Officer-in-Charge of Lalbagh P.S. About the unnnatural

death of his daugther Niyara Bibi aged about 35 years

who was married to Mekail Sk. 12 years ago . Her

daughter gave birth to four children . She was often

subjected to torture by her husband both physically

and mentally. On 15th September, 1996 his son-in-law

inflicted torture, upon his daughter and again on 19 th

September, 1996 at about 9 a.m. Mekail assaultd his

wife and left the house. Consequent upon such physical

torture Niyara Bibi consumed poison and committed

suicide. The information since disclosed offence

cognizable in nature Lalgola P.S. case No. 109 of 1996

was registered under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian

Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted charge

sheet. The accused person stood trial pleading his

innocence. Learned trial Court after considering the

testimony of 11 prosecution witnessess was pleased to

record an order of conviction against the accused

person who made an unnsuccessful attempt to get the

order of conviction reversed by preferring the criminal

appeal No. 2 of 1999. Learned Appellate Court

expressed its agreement with the view of learned trial

Court. Challenging the legality of the judgment

impugned the petitioner has approached this Court.

Heard Mr. Abhijit Basu , learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal , learned

counsel for the State. I have perused the evidence on

record. Here in this case it is alleged that that the

victim consumed poison and put an end to her life.

Prosecution did not examine the Autopsy Surgeon,

there is no medical evidence as such to substantiate

the fact that the lady committed suicide. No chemical

examination report was produced by the prosecution

to substantiate that the victim actually committed

suicide by consuming poison. The post mortem report

was admitted into evidence by learned trial Court as

learned defence counsel did not raise any objection in

admitting the same into evidence.

Learned trial Court perhaps relied upon the

provison of Section 294 of Cr P C . Be that as it may

from the post mortem report I find that the autopsy

surgeon found mucus membrance with foul smelling

content but this finding may give birth to the probability

that the lady might have consumed something

poisonous but a sessions case cannot be proved on

such probability, particularly when the Autopsy Surgeon

was not admit the report produced to face cross-

examination. Consent of advocate to the Autopsy

Surgeon cannot be said to be an act of estoppel as

against appellant. It is afterall a question of law that prosecution is required to prove the charges beyond

reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses ,

particularly the parents and neighbouring people

stated that victim was subjected to torture , her

husband did not provide her food and she was

oppressed by her husband. In my considered opinion

this is a general omnibus statement based on which

charge under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be said

to have been established. After having a conjugal life

of twelve years the victim committed suicide and what

is transpiring from the evidence is that the man fell in

love with another lady but PW 4 Badenm Bibi stated

that after initial shock Niyara Bibi reconciled with the

situation; she had a quarrel with her husband when

she came to know that her husband wanted to marry

again but the issue was ultimately settled. This is an

exonerating statement. made by proseuction witness.

PW 9 is one of the sons of the victim who stated that

on the fateful day after the quarrel took place between

his parents, his father assaulted his mother for food in

his presence. During cross-examination the child

stated that he was living with his maternal grand

parents who wanted his father to get punished. Child

witness though denied to have been tutored by

maternal grand parents but his sole testimony will not

be enough particularly, when the testimony of the child is not getting support from any other witnesses, to hold

that the victim was assaulted for food by her husband

on the fateful day. It cannot be said to be an element

to instigate the wife to commit suicide , particuarly

when it has transpired from the testimony of PW 3 that

the accused used to treat his wife well but occasionally

he used to quarrel with his wife. In my opinion, there

is no element to constitute offence within the meaning

of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code . When it has

not been established beyond doubt that victim

consumed poision coupled with lack of evidence that

she was instigated to commit suicide by her husband ,

I am of the view that prosecution case cannot be said

to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the

impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court

should not be allowed to remain in force. Consequently

the order of conviction is reversed and is converted into

order of acquittal.

The criminal revision, thus, disposed of

together with application , if any.

Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned

trial Court for information and necessary action.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order,

if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the

parties on the usual undertakings.

( Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter