Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Srabani Sadar @ Sraboni Sardar & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal on 30 September, 2024
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
C.R.A. (SB) 17 of 2023
Srabani Sadar @ Sraboni Sardar & Anr.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal
With
C.R.A. (SB) 44 of 2023
Lakshmi Mondal @ Lakshi Mondal & Anr.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellants : Mr. Arnab Sinha,
Mr. Amartya Basu,
Ms. Asama Biswas.
For the State : Ms. Sreyashee Biswas,
Ms. Eshita Dutta.
Hearing Concluded On : 02.09.2024
Judgement On : 30.09.2024
Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2022 and 20.12.2022 passed by the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Howrah in Sessions
Trial No. 314 of 2017 wherein the learned trial Court was pleased to convict the
all appellants under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the
appellants Lakshi Mondal and Biswajit Mondal under Sections 306/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentence them as follows:
(i) (a) For the offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal
Code - the appellants Smt. Srabani Sardar and Anath Sardar
(Appellants in CRA (SB) 17 of 2023) were sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 (Two) years and pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/-, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for
06 (Six) months.
(b) The appellants Biswajit Mondal and Smt. Lakshi Mondal
(Appellants in CRA (SB) 44 of 2023) were sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 (Two) years and pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/-, in default, to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for
06 (Six) months.
(ii) For the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code - the appellants Biswajit Mondal and Smt.
Lakshi Mondal were sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for 7 (Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for
1 (one) year.
Domjur P.S. case no. 505/2017 dated 18.06.2017 was registered for
investigation under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the
basis of written information submitted by Alok Hazra (father of the deceased)
with the Officer-in-Charge, Domjur Police Station. The allegations made in the
written information were to the effect that on 18.11.2012, Amrita Hazra,
daughter of the complainant was married to Biswajit Mondal. The marriage
was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage Amrita
(deceased) started leading her conjugal life with the accused Biswajit at her
matrimonial home and a male child was born to the couple. The marital life of
Amrita was not happy, as she used to be physically and mentally tortured by
her husband and in-laws. On 17.06.2017 at about 10:00 P.M. the deceased
Amrita informed her father who was at Delhi over phone about the torture
being inflicted upon her. On 18.06.2017 at about 4:00 A.M. her father was
informed over phone that his daughter Amrita was no more. On hearing such
information, the complainant rushed back from Delhi, and as per his
instructions, the written complaint was prepared and submitted with the
Officer-in-Charge, Domjur Police Station. It was categorically informed in the
written complaint that on 17.06.2017 from 8:30 A.M. in the morning the
accused persons inflicted physical and mental torture upon the deceased and
asked her to consume poison, on that day, at about 11:00 P.M. The accused
persons forcibly administered poison to her, as a consequence of which, on
18.06.2017 at late night she started vomiting and became sick thereafter she
was shifted to Domjur hospital, wherefrom she was referred to Medical College
and Hospital, however she had been taken to one Besubon (sic) Nursing Home
and then shifted to Green View Nursing Home, where she was declared dead by
the doctor.
On receipt of the complaint the Officer-in-charge, Domjur Police Station
was pleased to endorse the case to Priyanka Mondal (P.W.13), Sub-Inspector of
Police attached to Domjur Police Station. The Investigating Officer on
completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet before the learned C.J.M.
Howrah. As the offences complained of in the charge-sheet were Sessions
triable offences i.e. under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the
learned C.J.M. Howrah, after compliance with the relevant provisions of law,
was pleased to commit the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah and
finally the proceedings along with the case records were transmitted to the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court Howrah, for trial and
disposal. The learned Trial Court on 08.02.2018, was pleased to frame charges
against all the four accused persons, under Sections 498A/34 and 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charges were read over to the
accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 18 witnesses which
included, P.W.1, Alok Hazra, complainant and father of the deceased; P.W.2,
Kalyani Mondal, a neighbour of the matrimonial home; P.W.3, Krishna
Mondal, a neighbour residing near the matrimonial home; P.W.4, Subrata
Mondal, a neighbour residing near the matrimonial home; P.W.5, Ayush
Mondal, son of the deceased; P.W.6, Priyabrata Mondal @ Ramesh, a neighbour
residing near the matrimonial home of the deceased; P.W.7, Arup Halder, a
driver who took the deceased to Domjur Hospital by car; P.W.8, Bandana
Hazra, mother of the deceased; P.W.9, Gita Chakraborty, an acquaintance of
the deceased; P.W.10, Sarbeswar Mondal, Executive Magistrate who conducted
inquest; P.W.11, Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Medical Officer who prepared the
post-mortem report; P.W.12, Jyotirmoy Mondal Sub-Inspector of Police who
held surathal examination; P.W.13, Priyanka Mondal, Investigating Officer of
the case; P.W.14, Pritamana Nanda, Judicial Magistrate who recorded
statements of four witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; P.W.15, Soumya
Chatterjee, Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of Ayush Mondal,
son of the deceased; P.W.16, Dr. Mala Chatterjee, Medical Officer attached to
Domjur Rural Hospital who initially examined and treated Amrita Mondal;
P.W.17, Dr. Subha Hazra, scientific Officer who examined the sample of the
viscera of the deceased; P.W.18, Dr. Amitabha Chattopadhyay, post-mortem
doctor.
P.W.1, Alok Hazra is the complainant and father of the deceased who
deposed before the Court that he had two daughters, namely Arpita Hazra and
Amrita Hazra and both of them were married. Amrita (deceased) was the
younger daughter and on 18.11.2012 her marriage was solemnized with
Biswajit Mondal. A male child was born to them who was named as Ayush.
After marriage, Amrita started to reside with her husband at her in-law's
house. The members of the matrimonial home of Amrita consisted of her
husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and the sister-in-law used to visit
frequently along with her husband. Amrita was not at all happy as there was a
constant bickering between the couple and as such she was physically and
mentally tortured. She died on 18.06.2017 as she was poisoned to death. He
further deposed that he came to know from the neighbours of the matrimonial
home of Amrita that she was poisoned and from the morning of 17.06.2017,
the accused persons started quarrelling with her and was not offered any food
and further she was threatened to death. At about 10 P.M. on 17.06.2017,
Amrita rang him over phone and narrated the incident which had taken place
on that date and requested him to take her back from her matrimonial home.
In the early morning of 18.06.2017, at about 4 A.M., he was informed over
phone that Amrita was no more. At the relevant point of time, he was at Delhi
and came down on the same day at about 10.00 A.M. and went to Domjur
Police Station. He dictated a written complaint which was drafted by Ram
Chandra Hazra, his elder brother. He identified the written complaint and his
signature which was admitted in evidence. He also identified the accused
Biswajit, Srabani and her husband Anath in Court. However, as the other
accused Lakshmi Mondal was not present in Court, there was no scope for
identification. In cross-examination he stated that his elder daughter stayed at
Delhi and at the relevant point of time he visited her house. He also informed
the Court that he came to know regarding the incident over phone from
Biswajit Mondal. He further replied in cross-examination that there were
frequent quarrel between Amrita and her husband. The witness confirmed in
cross-examination regarding the receipt of telephone call from Amrita at 10
P.M. on 17.06.2017 and the request made by her was to bring her back to her
paternal home. He denied the suggestion that Amrita committed suicide by
poison due to her affair with Santi Das. The witness was recalled and his
signature in the two inquest reports prepared in connection with the instant
case were shown, which was identified by him and the same was admitted in
evidence.
P.W.2, Kalyani Mondal is a neighbour who identified the accused Biswajit
Mondal, his sister and her husband in Court. She deposed that her residence
is situated in front of the house of Biswajit and proceeded to state that the
deceased Amrita had a troubled marital life, as the couple used to quarrel
frequently. There was also frequent quarrel between Amrita and her mother-in-
law. She identified Srabani as the married sister in-law and Anath Sardar as
her husband and stated that they also joined quarrel whenever they used to
come at the matrimonial home of Amrita. She further deposed that Amrita died
due to poisoning. On the day of the incident, there was a dispute going on at
Biswajit's house from early morning and the quarrel continued throughout the
day and night. At about 1:00 A.M. she found that the quarrel at Biswajit's
house was still continuing and at 5:00 A.M. she saw an ambulance in front of
Biswajit's house with Amrita's body being kept inside. Arup, Ramesh and few
persons were there and when she asked them what happened to her, they
informed her that Amrita had been poisoned. She was examined by the Police
in connection with the instant case and she also narrated the incident to a
judge of a Court who recorded her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C
where she signed. She was shown her signature in the statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. which was admitted in evidence. In cross-examination, she replied
that whatever she had deposed in Court she also informed the Police authority.
On a specific question in cross-examination, she replied that she came to know
afterwards that Amrita died by consuming poison. She also replied in cross-
examination that she could not ascertain the reason of dispute which
continued throughout the day prior to the death of Amrita. However she did
not try to stop the quarrel between the couple.
P.W.3, Krishna Mondal is a neighbour residing near the matrimonial home
of the deceased who identified the accused Biswajit Mondal, Srabani Sardar
and Anath Sardar. She stated before the Court that her house is beside the
house of the accused Biswajit. Biswajit's family consisted of his mother and
sometimes his married sister used to visit the house. She also stated that
initially Amrita had a normal married life. However, trouble with the husband
and mother-in-law surfaced afterwards and Amrita died in the month of Ashar
about a year ago and she could gather from the crowd in front of Biswajit's
house that Amrita had been poisoned to death. In cross-examination, she
replied that she usually goes to bed at about 10.00/10.30 P.M. every day and
the conversation which took place at Biswajit's house was not audible to her.
She further replied that Biswajit's sister was Srabani and she heard that
Amrita had been poisoned but she do not know from whom she got this
information.
P.W.4 is Subrata Mondal, a neighbour of the matrimonial home of the
deceased who stated that his house is just in front of the house of Biswajit. He
stated to the Court that there were frequent quarrels between Amrita on the
one hand and Biswajit and his mother on the other hand. He proceeded to
narrate that about a year ago, Amrita died as she was administered poison and
at about 10.00/10.30 P.M., when he was strolling on the pathway by the side
of his house, Biswajit called him and reported to him that Amrita used to chat
with a man on WhatsApp. He advised Biswajit to amicably settle the matter
and not to quarrel with Amrita, he thereafter returned to his home as he was to
visit a doctor at Bhadreshwar early next morning. At about 2/2.30 A.M. his
brother Ramesh woke him up and called him outside the house, informing that
something had taken place at Biswajit's house. He immediately visited
Biswajit's house and asked him as to what happened. He detected strong smell
inside Biswajit's house and found that no information was sent for ambulance.
He along with his brother called a Maruti car and his wife also went at
Biswajit's house and forced Amrita to drink tamarind water. At that point time,
Amrita with her left hand clasped the kid and with her right hand held the
collar of Biswajit and as such she was not in a position to speak up. After a
short while, she was shifted to Domjur hospital where the incident was
narrated to the Police. His statement was also recorded before a Judge in the
Court where he appended his signature in the statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C., the same was shown to him which was identified and was admitted in
evidence. He identified all the accused persons in Court. In cross-examination
he replied that on the following day of the incident Police examined him. He
confirmed in his reply that he had been to Biswajit's house in the night and
also accompanied Amrita when she was shifted to hospital. On a specific query
in cross-examination, he replied that whatever he had heard from Biswajit
about Amrita and about WhatsApp texting, he did not hold any opinion that
she was engaged in an illicit relationship. A specific question was asked to the
witness whether it is his guess that Amrita was administered poison to which
he answered that the deceased indicated that she was given poison.
P.W.5 is Ayush Mondal, son of the deceased, who deposed that Amrita
Mondal was his mother and Biswajit Mondal is his father. His mother was
struck with lathi by Biswajit and she was administered poison by him. As a
result froth was coming out from her mouth from which he could understand
that she was administered poison. He further deposed that his mother is no
more and as such he has earlier told this incident before a Judge. In his cross
examination he replied that he was inside the room at the relevant point of
time and his mother was lying down. She had vomited and he had not been to
any place on that day. He narrated the incident to Dadu and Dida and no one
else. In cross-examination he also replied that after giving his statement to the
Judge he returned to the house.
P.W.6 is Priyabrata Mondal @ Ramesh, a neighbour who deposed that his
house is situated in front of Biswajit's house and this witness narrated the
incident in the same manner as PW2, PW3 and PW4.
P.W.7 is Arup Haldar, a driver who had taken the deceased to Domjur
Hospital. The witness deposed that he was acquainted with Biswajit who
married Amrita who is no more. According to him, Amrita died after
consuming something. He being a driver by profession was possessing a
Maruti van who was called by Priyabrata (P.W.6). He was informed that Amrita
was sick and had to be shifted to hospital, as such, he took his car and shifted
Amrita to Domjur Hospital. At that time, Biswajit, his mother and two of
Biswajit's neighbours had come along with Amrita in the car. Amrita had froth
oozing from her mouth and the doctor of Domjur hospital advised them to shift
Amrita to Howrah Hospital or to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. An
ambulance was thereafter arranged, which had the facility for availing oxygen
to patients. Amrita was also administered saline. He did not go along with the
ambulance. However, he narrated the incident to police after two or three days
of the incident and his statement was also recorded by a Judge. He identified
his signatures in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. He also identified the accused Biswajit and his mother in Court. In
cross-examination he replied that on the day when he went to the Court, he
was accompanied by Kalyani, Priyabrata Mondal and Huda.
P.W.8 is Bandana Hazra, mother of the deceased, who deposed that
Amrita was her daughter and married to Biswajit. After marriage, Amrita
resided at her matrimonial home. According to her, Amrita did not have a
happy married life and there were frequent quarrel and she used to be
assaulted also. Biswajit and his mother were the main perpetrators and when
Biswajit's sister and her husband used to visit her matrimonial home, the
situation became bleak. Additionally, she deposed that she got this information
from the deceased Amrita when she would come to her house. Amrita is no
more. According to her, accused persons poisoned her to death. The incident
took place on 18.06.2017 which was a Saturday and at about 2.00/2.30 A.M.
She identified all the accused persons in Court. In cross-examination she
answered that she often visited Amrita's matrimonial home but was not ill-
treated during such visits. On the issue relating to quarrel or Amrita being
assaulted, she replied that she never lodged any complaint with the panchayat
or the Police regarding Amrita being tortured by the accused persons. However
she categorically stated that she did not know any person by the name of Santi
Das and also denied having any knowledge regarding texting on WhatsApp by
Amrita at the night of the incident.
P.W.9 is Gita Chakraborty, an acquaintance of the deceased who deposed
that Amrita had speaking terms with her and whenever she used to meet
Amrita, she informed her that she was having a troubled marital life.
Additionally, she deposed before the Court that whenever her sister-in-law and
her husband used to visit her matrimonial home, the situation would become
worse. She also informed the Court that Amrita died on 18.06.2017 and at
about 5.00 A.M. in the morning, she received a phone call. According to her,
she was told that Amrita had been killed by the accused administering poison.
She identified all the accused persons in Court and informed that on
19.06.2017, she was examined by the Police when they came to her house. In
cross-examination, she denied of knowing any person by the name of Santi
Das and further stated that last time she came in touch with Amrita was prior
to her parents leaving for Delhi.
P.W.10 Sarbeswar Mondal, Executive Magistrate who conducted the
inquest over dead body of Amrita Mondal in connection with UD Case No.
61/17 dated 18.06.2017. He deposed that he performed the inquest at Domjur
Police Station. The inquest report was prepared and signed by him. He also
identified his official seal. The inquest report was admitted in evidence. The
witness on being cross-examined replied that he was not aware regarding any
UD Case at the time of and during his inquest and the dead body was
identified to him by the father of the deceased. At the relevant point of time,
the brother and uncle of the deceased were also present. Additionally, in cross-
examination he replied that he could not detect any poison, but he wrote
poison in the report on the basis of the statements made by the witnesses at
the time of inquest.
P.W.11 is Amitabha Chattopadhyay, Medical Officer attached to Howrah
District Hospital who deposed that on 18.06 2017, he conducted the post-
mortem examination over the dead body of Amrita Mondal Hazra in connection
with Domjur P.S. UD case No. 61/17 dated 18.06. 2017. The dead body was
identified by a Constable who inspected the inquest report at the time of his
examination and on examining he noticed that the mucous membrane of the
stomach of the deceased was congested and the stomach had deep yellow-
coloured liquid weighing approximately three ounces which had a pungent
smell. The condition of the stomach reflected a possibility of poisoning. It is as
a result of poisoning a pungent smell was coming out of the stomach. He
identified the post-mortem report along with his signature and the seal which
was admitted in evidence. In cross-examination he replied that the dissection
commenced at 3.40 pm and opined the time of death in his report. He
explained the meaning of the word pungent. However, he categorically stated
that he could not say with certainty whether the yellow-coloured liquid was
poison or not. He also replied in cross-examination that there was no visible
injury and he could not find any injury on the outer or inner side of the dead
body.
P.W. 12 is Jyotirmoy Mondal, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Domjur
Police Station who on 18.06.2017 conducted the surathal examination of the
dead body of Amrita Mondal. He deposed that the B.D.O. also performed an
inquest over the same dead body in his presence. He identified the photostat
copy of the surathal report with his signature and stated that the original
document was sent to the morgue. He identified the dead body challan with his
signature on it which was admitted in evidence. In cross-examination he
replied that he was aware regarding the husband of the deceased as Biswajit
but the surname was mistakenly written.
P.W.13 is Priyanka Mondal, Investigating Officer of the case who deposed
that she was endorsed the case by Sub-Inspector Alok Mondal. After getting
charge of the case she went to the place of occurrence at Uttar Jhapardaha,
Mondal Para at the house of Biswajit Mondal and prepared a rough sketch
map along with index. She further narrated that a strong smell of medicine or
fertilizer was present at the house of Biswajit and she intended to search the
origin of the smell but could not find anything. Few witnesses were examined
by her. She arrested the FIR named accused persons and forwarded them to
Court. On 19.06.2017 she went to the paternal house of the deceased to
examine Ayush Mondal (child). She also examined other witnesses including
mother of the deceased and seized the copy of the marriage registration
certificate along with the photograph of the mother of the deceased. On
26.06.2017 she went to the locality of the accused and examined some of the
witnesses and on 22.06.2017 she sent Priyabrata Mondal, Subrata Mondal,
Kalyani Mondal and Arup Haldar to Court for recording their statements under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 23.06.2017 she sent the
child Ayush Mondal to Court whose statement was recorded under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently she collected the copies of the statements under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 09.07.2017 she seized the
wearing apparels of the deceased from the Dom and collected the post-mortem
and surathal reports from the Enquiry Officer of the UD Case No. 61 of 2017
dated 18.06.2017. On 11.08.2017 she sent the viscera of the deceased for
forensic examination through the Learned C.J.M., Howrah. On 02.09.2017 she
again went to the house of the accused to search for a mug as the child in his
statement disclosed regarding the mug, however nothing was found. On
08.09.2017 she submitted charge-sheet against the four accused persons
namely Biswajit Mondal, Laxmi Mondal, Anath Sardar and Srabani Sardar.
P.W.14 is Pritamana Nanda, Judicial Magistrate who recorded the
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of Brihobrata Mondal @ Ramesh, Arup
Haldar, Subrata Mondal and Kalyani Mondal. She identified her signature and
the certificate which was issued by her and the same were admitted in
evidence. She further stated that she knew the name of the persons from the
Constable who identified them.
P.W.15 is Soumya Chatterjee, Judicial Magistrate who recorded the
statement of the child Ayush Mondal. The learned Magistrate deposed that the
child was identified by a Constable and before recording the statement he
tested the competence of the witness by asking him 13 questions and after
being satisfied he recorded the statement. After the statement was recorded
the child witness appended his LTI on the pages. The statement including his
signature and certificate was identified by him and as such admitted in
evidence. In cross examination he replied that the witness did not tell him that
his father beat his mother with a stick.
P.W.16 is Dr. Mala Chatterjee, Medical Officer attached to Domjur Rural
Hospital who deposed that she examined one Amrita Mondal wife of Biswajit
Mondal at about 2.50 A.M. on 18.06.2017 who was brought by Biswajit
Mondal and Lakshmi Mondal. At the time when the patient was brought she
was unconscious and froth was coming out. Pupils were pin pointed, there was
crepitation in the chest. The patient was administered Atropine injection and
decadron was also injected. She was given rantac, Oxygen, normal saline, lasix
and pralidoxine. The patient was thereafter referred to Medical College and
Hospital or Howrah District Hospital. She stated, according to the husband
there were family tension and a quarrel in the evening. She gave a view that
the patient exhibited symptoms of unknown poisoning. She identified the
certified true copy of the emergency record of the rural hospital which was
admitted in evidence. On the same day at about 7.50 A.M. the patient was
again brought to the rural hospital and at that time the patient was dead. The
fact was noted in the register and the B.M.O.H. certified the copy. Police was
informed and inquest was performed by the Police authority, when she signed
the inquest report she identified the signature which was admitted in evidence.
In cross-examination she replied that she could not give stomach wash as the
patient was in a critical condition.
P.W. 17 is Dr. Shubo Hazra, a Senior Scientific Officer who examined the
viscera of the deceased, he deposed that in connection with Domjur P.S. case
No. 505/17 dated 18.06.2017 and on 11.08.2017 he received the article which
consisted of a paper packet marked 'A' containing plastic jar, wherein sample
of viscera was there. The same was examined and on examination he did not
find any poison to be detected in the viscera of Amrita Mondal. He further
opined that non-finding of traces of poison may be because of many reasons,
one of which may be lapse of time from the date of occurrence to the date of
examination. He also assigned the reason that in course of treatment the
patient may be administered some medicines which may also eradicate the
trace of poison. Next reason he assigned that the patient immediately if she
vomits as well and froth comes out from the mouth, the poison may not be
detected. He identified the report which was signed by him along with his
designation, the same was admitted in evidence. In cross-examination he
replied that neutralization of poison depends on the character or the type of
poison. While some poison takes long time to neutralize, other poison may not
take much time. He further replied in cross-examination that there are some
certain principles and also some uncertain principles for neutralization of
poison which depends from one case to the other and it is not possible for him
to determine whether the deceased died due to effect of poisoning or not, as no
trace of poison could be detected by him.
P.W. 18 is Dr. Amitabh Chattopadhyay, the post-mortem doctor who
deposed before the Court that he conducted the post-mortem in connection
with Domjur P.S. UD Case No. 61/17 dated 18.06.2017. He narrated that the
body was identified by a Constable and in the P.M. report he wrote that his
opinion was pending subject to receipt of final report of the FSL as there were
some findings in the P.M. report. The final opinion was after receipt of the FSL
report that it was death due to effect of poisoning, anti-mortem in nature. He
identified the post-mortem report along with the final opinion prepared by him,
which was marked in evidence. In cross-examination he replied that he was
waiting for the FSL report for drawing his final opinion as the stomach
materials collected in post-mortem of the deceased revealed pungent smell
which might be the abnormal cause for the death. He also replied that he did
not get any external and internal injuries in the body of the deceased.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the prosecution
version is inconsistent so far as the evidence relating to all the appellants are
concerned and the appellants have been victimized unnecessarily. It was
submitted on behalf of the appellant that so far as the sister-in-law and her
husband (the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2023), there are no
allegations against them, yet they have been implicated in the criminal case
and had to face the ordeal of trial. In addition, they were convicted for the
offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, being sentenced for two
years with fine. On behalf of the appellants it was canvassed that majority of
the witnesses complained of quarrel, which was restricted mainly to the
husband and occasionally with the mother-in-law. However, the sister-in-law
and her husband were residing at a separate place and used to visit the
paternal home for which they have been implicated. No where in the evidence
there has been any demand of dowry and the only incriminating material
which has been repeatedly stated is 'quarrel' and nothing else. Further, the
relations of the deceased tutored the child, as such he deposed against his
father and the other appellants in such a manner that the same runs contrary
to the evidence of the case. It was further canvassed before the Court that the
FSL expert, i.e. P.W. 17 (Scientific Officer) could not give any opinion as no
traces of poison could be detected in the viscera of the deceased. Surprisingly,
the post-mortem doctor, who initially could not give any opinion, subsequently
gave an opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was because of
poisoning. It was therefore reiterated that even the opinion of the expert in this
case cannot be accepted to be final and thus the cumulative effect of whole of
the evidence do not lead to any conclusive proof for which the appellants can
be held guilty and convicted. As such, it was prayed before this Court that the
Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence against the appellants be set
aside.
On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the State submitted
that the marriage between the deceased and the appellant Biswajit Mondal was
solemnized in November, 2012 and the untimely death of the deceased was on
June, 2017. It was emphasized that under unnatural circumstances, within
seven years of marriage, the deceased had to end her life which un-erringly
would point to the inmates of the matrimonial home, who is to answer the
reason behind the death of the victim/deceased. On behalf of the State, it was
further submitted that there has been a consistent version of all the
prosecution witnesses and the version was that there was a quarrel between
the husband and mother-in-law on one side and the deceased and things got
worse when the sister-in-law and her husband used to visit the matrimonial
home. Additionally, it was submitted that it was not only the relations who had
a consistent version of quarrel but the neighbours also reported regarding the
quarrel which took place in the matrimonial home of the victim/diseased. It
was therefore submitted that the consistency in the version of the prosecution
witnesses would go to show that the deceased was compelled to end her life
under unnatural circumstances and as such, all the appellants are responsible
for the commission of the offense. Consequently, the Judgment and Order of
conviction and sentence do not call for any interference by this Court and the
same should be affirmed.
I have considered the submissions of the learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellants as also that of the State and analyzed the evidence
which has been relied upon by the prosecution. An assessment of the evidence
reflects that although the written complaint was generalized in nature
implicating all the accused persons but in Court, there was a different version
of each of the witnesses. The evidence goes to show that the appellant being
Srabani Sardar (sister-in-law) and his husband Anath Sardar, were visitors at
the matrimonial house of the deceased, and when they used to come, the
prosecution witnesses deposed that there was quarrel. However, there is
inconsistency in such versions while PW1 and PW8 deposed that the sister-in-
law and her husband were frequent visitors but P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed that
the sister-in-law and her husband used to come, there is no reflection that
they were frequent or occasional visitors. However, P.W.4 who is one of the
vital witness of the case and a neighbour namely, Subrata Mondal, did not
allege anything regarding the sister-in-law and the brother-in-law but there
was a statement in his narration that the frequent quarrel were between
Amrita on one hand and Biswajit and his mother on the other hand.
Now, coming back to the other appeal, where the appellants are the
mother-in-law and the husband are concerned, I find that there was an
allegation that quarrel used to take place between the deceased on the one
hand and the husband and the mother-in-law on the other hand. So far as the
issue relating to abatement is concerned, in this case I find that the husband
used to accuse the deceased of some illicit relationship which is reflected in
the evidence of P.W.4, Subrata Mondal. He deposed that on the night
preceding the death of the victim, while he was strolling on the pathway, the
husband Biswajit told him that his wife Amrita used to chat with a man on
WhatsApp. In this case, it is reiterated that from the inception there was no
allegation of demand of dowry. However, the only point which has been
canvassed is that there was quarrel. Having regard to the material which the
prosecution has relied upon and the close proximity of time when the husband
Biswajit Mondal expressed his frustration to P.W.4 regarding his wife chatting
with a man and within few hours of the same, the wife was seen in a manner
which reflects that she consumed poison as froth was coming out from her
mouth and she had to be shifted to a hospital, it was incumbent that the
explanation of such unnatural circumstances should have come from the side
of the accused. In the absence of the same not being there, the natural course
of events lead to the factum of the issue of abatement to commit suicide being
directly related to the husband himself which implicates the appellant Biswajit
Mondal and creates a different locus of this accused from rest of the accused
persons. Needless to state that there is evidence which reflects that on the
previous day quarrel took place in the house of the accused persons with the
deceased Amrita on the one side and the husband and the mother-in-law on
the other side.
The evidence against each of the accused persons as such is
distinguishable in the present case for holding them responsible. So far as
Srabani Sardar and Anath Sardar the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of
2023 is concerned, I find that there being no subject matter of quarrel being
divulged and there also being no demand for dowry in this case, I am of the
opinion that issues which flared up in day-to-day household affairs cannot
make any person responsible within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code and as such the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence
so passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court,
Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 314 of 2017 corresponding to Domjur P.S. Case
No. 505 of 2017, calls for interference and the same is set aside
So far as the mother-in-law Lakshmi Mondal is concerned, no materials
are appearing against her for abetment. However, she has been convicted both
for the charges under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The charge under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Lakshmi Mondal in
Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2023, calls for interference and the order of
conviction and sentence against the appellant Lakshmi Mondal under Section
306/34 of the Indian Penal Code so passed by the Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 314 of 2017
corresponding to Domjur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2017 is as such set aside.
However, her conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is not
interfered with, although having considered that she has suffered detention for
a period of about three years during the course of investigation, trial and
pendency of the appeal, I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the
learned Trial Court should be reduced to the period for which she had already
suffered detention.
So far as the appellant Biswajit Mondal is concerned, in the light of the
observations which have been referred above, I am of the opinion that no
interference is called for in respect of the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence so passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 314 of 2017 corresponding to Domjur P.S. Case No. 505 of 2017. As
such, the appeal of Biswajit Mondal in Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 44 of 2023 is
dismissed.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 17 of 2023 is allowed and Criminal
Appeal (SB) No. 44 of 2023 is partly allowed.
The appellants who have been acquitted, automatically they are
discharged from their bail bonds, if they are on bail.
Pending connected application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
Department is directed to send back the TCR immediately. A copy of the
judgment be forwarded to the ld. Trial Court immediately for compliance
regarding the directions given above.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
