Rakesh Sahani vs State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 360 Cal

Form J(2)       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                            Appellate Side

Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

                        CRA 133 of 2017

                        Rakesh Sahani
                            -Versus-
                     State of West Bengal

For the appellant           :     Mr. Saryati Datta,
                                  Mr. Sandip Kumar Dan.

For the respondent          :     Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta,

Mr. S. S. Imam, Mr. Pratick Bose.

Heard & Judgement on : 08.02.2022.

Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in

Sessions Case No. 99/2012 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.

3/December/2012 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Court, Rampurhat thereby convicting accused, Rakesh Sahani

for the offence punishable under Section 498A/304B/306 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

seven years for the offence under Section 304B and also rigorous

imprisonment for seven years with fine and default clause for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and

rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is assailed in the instant

appeal.

Marriage of the appellant, Rakesh Sahani was solemnized

according to Hindu rites and ceremonies with one Aparna Sahani,

daughter of Prahlad Sahani of village - Bahina within Police Station -

Mayureswar, Birbhum on 13th May, 2011. At the time of marriage,

the father of Aparna gave a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, gold

ornaments weighing about 10 'bhari' and other ceremonial gifts as

bridal presents. However, subsequent to marriage Aparna was

subjected to torture by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and

sister-in-law on demand of a motorcycle. On 15 th June, 2011, the

daughter of the de facto complainant requested him over telephone to

take her to her paternal home from her matrimonial home, failing

which the husband and other matrimonial relations of Aparna would

kill her. On 16th June, 2011, the de facto complainant took her to his

house. On 17th June, 2011 at about 9 p.m., Aparna set herself on fire

by pouring kerosene oil on her body in the bathroom of her paternal

home. The parents of Aparna and their neighbours rescued her by

breaking upon the door of the bathroom. However, when she was

recovered, Aparna was extremely burnt. She did not give any

opportunity for medical treatment and succumbed to her burn injury

at her paternal home. According to the de facto complainant, his

daughter committed suicide failing to bear the torture inflicted upon

her by her husband and other matrimonial relations.

On the basis of the said complaint, Police registered Mayureswar

Police Station Case No. 139/2011 dated 17.06.2011 under Section

498A/304B/306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband, father-in-law,

mother-in-law, brother-in-law and married sister-in-law of the

deceased.

Investigation of the above police case ended in filing charge-

sheet against the above-named accused persons. Trial of the case

was commenced by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court at Rampurhat. On conclusion of trial, the Learned Trial Judge

upon due consideration of evidence on record and the argument

advanced by the Learned Counsels for the parties convicted and

sentenced the appellant in three counts of charge as narrated above.

It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the trial of the

case Rajendra Sahani, father-in-law of the deceased passed away and

the case against him was abated. Other accused persons were

acquitted from the charge by the Learned Trial Judge.

During trial, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.

Amongst them, the de facto complainant deposed as P.W. 1. P.W. 2,

Drapadi Sahani is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 5, Raj Kumar

Sahani is the brother of Aparna. P.W. 3, Kalyani Let and P.W. 6, Joy

Shankar Sinha are the residents of Mallarpur. P.W. 4, Md. Ibrahim

was the Executive Magistrate who held inquest over the dead body of

the deceased. The Autopsy Surgeon was examined as P.W. 7. P.W.

8, Abhijit Das is the scribe of the de facto complainant. P.W. 10, Kazi

Md. Hossain and P.W. 11, Brikada Sanyal are the Investigating

Officers.

The accused persons were duly examined under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. They also examined one Naresh

Chandra Nandi of Village - Rajnagar as D.W. 1.

From the examination of the accused persons under Section 313

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deposition made by D.W. 1, the

specific defence case can be ascertained inasmuch as the deceased

had love affair with one Amit Chakraborty. Therefore, she was not

agreeable in her marriage with the appellant. She did not want to

stay with her husband. When her dream love came to an abrupt end,

she committed suicide. The accused persons never demanded any

dowry at the time of or after the marriage between Rakesh and

Aparna.

I have carefully perused the evidence on record. I have also

perused the judgment delivered by the Learned Trial Judge. It is

pertinent to mention at the outset that demand and payment of

dowry has not been proved during trial of the case. Therefore, the

appellant was acquitted from the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act. Furthermore, it is found from the evidence

of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 that before marriage the appellant or his

relatives did not make any demand of dowry from the father of the

deceased. The father of the deceased gave certain bridal presents on

her own accord at the time of marriage of his daughter. Delivery of

bridal presents and gifts at the time of marriage to the bride or

bridegroom does not amount to dowry. The evidence on record is

sufficient enough to hold that the accused persons never demanded

any money or other valuable articles as condition of the marriage of

Rakesh with Aparna.

It is needless to say that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code

has two components. Explanation (a) of Section 498A speaks about

any wilful conduct by the husband or other matrimonial relations of a

married woman as was likely to drive such women to commit suicide

or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether

mentally or physically.

Clause (b) of Section 498A speaks of causing harm to such

women with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for

property or valuable security or on account of failure of such women

or any other relations to meet the lawful demand.

In the instant case, it is alleged by P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 that the

husband of the deceased demanded a motorcycle from her. Marriage

of the deceased with Rakesh was solemnized on 13 th May, 2011. She

left her matrimonial home on 16 th June, 2011. In the meantime, it is

found from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that till the date of

'Aastamangala' the matrimonial relations of his daughter behaved

with her cordially. It is needless to say that as a customary rite bride

and bridegroom come to the house of the bride on the 8 th day of

marriage and stay there for 1/2 days. Thus, from the evidence of the

de facto complainant it is ascertained that the appellant used to treat

his wife cordially at least for about 10 days after their marriage. After

'Aastamangala' they returned to the matrimonial home of the bride.

There she stayed for about 20 days because admittedly she returned

to her house on 16th June, 2011 and committed suicide on 17 th June,

2011. Within 20 days if the prosecution case is accepted the victim

was tortured in such a manner that she compelled to commit suicide.

I am constrained to hold that the evidence on record is not at all

sufficient to bring home the charge levelled by the prosecution against

the appellant. The witnesses, especially P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5

did not state any unequivocal term as to who amongst the

matrimonial relations demanded motorcycle from the father of the

deceased. During the lifetime of Aparna neither she nor her parents

or elder brother made any complaint alleging, inter alia, that the

accused persons used to torture her both physically and mentally on

demand of a motorcycle. Only after the death of Aparna the de facto

complainant made such allegation.

The Learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty on the

following reasons as quoted below:-

"Here, the case in hand, I find that Aparna Sahani is a

newly wed girl who was married on 13.05.2011 and the incident

of death occurred on 17.06.2011. She died of burn injuries.

Dr. Hemadri Halder (P.W.7) conducted post-mortem and found

on examination, the deceased sustaining 99% burn injury all

over the body and gave his opinion that the cause of death was

due to effect burn injury which was ante-mortem in nature.

The evidence of father Prahllad Sahani, mother Drapadi Sahani,

brother Rajkumar Sahani, neighbours viz. Jaysankar Sinha and

Kalyani Let of the deceased disclosed that the deceased Aparna

Sahani had complained of harassment and torture by her

husband and her other in-laws for bringing a motorcycle from

her parental house. It is not disputed into the evidence that the

death of Aparna Sahani was accidental death. So it may be

presumed that the deceased Aparna Sahani committed suicide

set herself into fire at the instigation of her husband or any

other in-laws member".

It is needless to say that in order to bring home a charge

against accused prosecution is under obligation to prove the charge

beyond all reasonably doubt. Presumption cannot take place of proof

of a criminal case. Learned Trial Judge held that as the deceased had

met with an unnatural death and committed suicide within 34 days of

her marriage, it might be presumed that she committed suicide at the

instigation of her husband.

From the four corners of the evidence on record it is not found

that the husband of the deceased instigated his wife to commit

suicide. There is absolutely no such allegation in the FIR made by the

de facto complainant or by the witnesses in course of their evidence.

There is also no evidence that soon before her death the appellant

treated her with cruelty which drove her to commit suicide. On the

other hand, the evidence on record shows that the deceased was a

student of B.A. 1st Year at the time of her marriage. The academic

qualification of the appellant, on the other hand, was Madhyamik

pass. Therefore, the deceased was more educated than her husband.

It is found from the evidence of D.W.1 that during her college days

the deceased had a love affair with one Amit Chakraborty or Sumit

Chakraborty. At the time of death Aparna was aged only about 19

years. During this tender age, a college going girl has some romantic

idea about life. When Aparna found that she had to marry against her

wish, it may be probable that she committed suicide. It is needless to

say that the defence does not require to prove its case beyond any

shadow of reasonable doubt. It is sufficient for the defence to present

its case on the basis of preponderance of probability.

Considering the entire evidence on record this Court is of

the view that the learned trial Judge erred both in law and fact by

convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 498A/304B/306

of the Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed.

The judgment and order of conviction and sentence

passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,

Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Case No. 99/2012 corresponding to

Sessions Trial No. 03/December/2012 is set aside.

The appellant be discharged from his bail bond at once.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court

record be sent down to the trial Court for information.

[Bibek Chaudhuri, J.]

Srimanta/Suman A. Rs. (Court)