Jagannath Pramanik vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6076 Cal

Item No. 57




                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           APPELLATE SIDE


Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
                And
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

                               C.R.A. 280 of 2012

                              Jagannath Pramanik
                                       Vs.
                           State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the Appellant         :      Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Adv.

For the State             :

Heard on                  :      12.09.2023.

Judgment on               :      12.09.2023.


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

1.       Appeal has been preferred by the appellant who is the de facto

complainant and the uncle of the deceased lady.

2.       It is alleged prosecution case is to the effect that in January 2002,

deceased had eloped with the second respondent Bibhas Singh. Initially,

the family did not accept the marriage. After one month they went to the

matrimonial home of their niece and the matter was settled. At that time

their niece stated that her in-laws had demanded money. Thereafter their

niece returned to her parental home.

3. A village salish was held where it is alleged Rs. 40,000/- was to be

handed over to one Debasis Ojha (PW 5) for payment to the husband and

in-laws as dowry. One year after marriage a daughter was born to the

couple. Soon thereafter torture upon the victim commenced to compel her

to bring more dowry. On 24.7.2006 appellant received information that

the victim had died due to burn injuries. At her matrimonial home he

could not find her husband and in-laws.

4. He lodged written complaint resulting in registration of the present

case. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges

were framed against respondent nos. 1 to 4 i.e. the husband and parents-

in-law of the victim lady under sections 498A/304B/34 IPC. In the course

of trial prosecution examined 7 witnesses.

5. On analysis of the evidence on record learned trial judge came to a

conclusion that the demand of dowry by the respondents was unlikely

and there is no reliable evidence that the victim lady was subjected to

cruelty for or in connection with dowry soon before her death.

Accordingly, he acquitted the accused persons. Hence, the present

appeal.

6. Lower court records have been received.

7. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the

evidence on record. PW 1 is the uncle of the deceased and the de facto

complainant. PW 3 is the mother of the deceased. PW 2 is a member of

Labpur Gram Panchayat. He was present during the salish. PW 4 is a

neighbour. PW 5 Debasis Ojha was present at the time of salish on behalf

of the respondents and it is alleged that he had received Rs. 40,000/- to

be handed over as dowry to the respondents. PW 6 also deposed about

the salish. PW 7 is the investigating officer.

8. PWs 1 and 3 are the uncle and mother of the deceased lady

respectively. They admitted in January 2002 the deceased had eloped

with Bibhas Sing. Initially they did not accept the marriage. One month

later they went to the matrimonial home of the deceased. It is contended

at that time the deceased informed them her in-laws had demanded

dowry. During cross examination PW 1 had admitted that trial judge

noted that the marriage between the deceased and Bibhas Sing was not

through negotiation. On the contrary Bibhas Sing had eloped with the

deceased in January 2002. Relations of the deceased did not accept the

marriage. In fact they had lodged a missing diary at Labpur P.S after the

lady had eloped. One month later they went to the matrimonial home of

the lady. There is no evidence on record that the trial judge held under

such setting it is unlikely that in-laws had made a demand of dowry in

connection with marriage. However evidence has come on record after the

marriage, the victim was residing at her parental home. A salish was held

to settle the dispute. Local people including member of the Panchayat i.e.

PWs 2 and 4 were present during the salish. PW 5 was also present and

deposed it was decided that the appellant would pay Rs. 40,000/- to the

in-laws. The following evening appellant went to the house of the

respondents and the money was handed over to the father in law. This

fact has not been corroborated by the appellant in his deposition. He did

not say that he had come to the house of the respondents and had

handed over the money to them. On the other hand he claims that the

money was handed over to Debasis Ojha (PW 5) for meeting the dowry

demands of the respondents. Even panchayat member PW 2 who claimed

in Court that he was present during the salish admitted that during cross

examination he did not disclose this fact earlier.

9. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the trial Judge expressed

doubt whether in the factual matrix it is likely dowry would be demanded.

The marriage was out of love and not negotiation. Victim had eloped with

the 2nd respondent. Her relations initially did not accept the marriage.

This Court is in agreement with the reasoning of the trial Judge that

under such circumstances it is unlikely that the respondents would

demand dowry when the couple had eloped and the relations of the victim

had not accepted their union.

10. Subsequently, the relations of the victim accepted the marriage.

Prosecution witnesses particularly PWs. 1 and 3 deposed thereafter she

returned to her parental home due to family disputes. Thereafter, a village

salish was held where it is said Rs. 40,000/- was paid through Debasis

Ojha (PW 5) to the respondents. Though evidence shows a salish was held

and there was a proposal to pay Rs. 40,000/-, the manner and

circumstances in which the payment, if any, was made is unclear. PW 1

stated the money was handed over to Debasis Ojha (PW 5) who, in turn,

handed it over to the respondents. But PW 5 stated that PW 1 had come

to the residence of the respondents and had handed over the money to

them. This shows payment of dowry to the respondents in terms of the

salish has not been proved.

11. It is the prosecution case after the salish the housewife returned to

her matrimonial home. A girl child was born. PWs 1 and 3 stated

thereafter she was subjected to torture over further demands of money.

Other independent witnesses including PW 5 have not supported the case

of torture after the salish. PW 5 stated after the victim returned to the

matrimonial home the relationship between the couple became normal.

Evidence of PWs 1 and 3 in this regard are also contradictory. During

cross-examination, PW 1 stated during the marriage of his younger

brother Debu, the victim had attended the ceremony. After Debu's

marriage relationship between the families were normal. PW 3 admitted

she did not state anything about torture after the salish to the police or

anyone.

12. In this backdrop, it appears torture upon the housewife after the

salish has not been proved. Salish was held within a couple of months of

marriage in 2002. Incident occurred in 2006. There is no credible

evidence of torture upon the housewife for more than three years prior to

her death. Hence, prosecution has singularly failed to prove the victim

housewife had been subjected to torture over demands of dowry soon

before her death. Trial Court had rightly held ingredients of the charged

offences had not been proved.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, we did not find any merit in the appeal.

14. Appeal is not admitted and is accordingly dismissed.

15. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be

forthwith sent down to the trial Court at once.

16. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be

made available to the appellant upon completion of all formalities.

I agree.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)                             (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)




tkm/PA