Tripura High Court
Smt. Lipika Deb vs Sri Rajesh Dey on 16 December, 2022
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
CRL A No.09 of 2021
Smt. Lipika Deb, daughter of late Satyabrata Deb, wife of Sri Rajesh Dey
of Debiprasad Sarani, Chandrapur, P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North
Tripura.
......De-facto-complainant-Appellant(s)
VERSUS
1. Sri Rajesh Dey, son of Sri Ramakanta Dey, resident of R.K. Mission
Road, Silchar, Assam,
2. Sri Ramakanta Dey, son of late Raman Bihari Dey, resident of R.K.
Mission Road, Silchar, Assam,
3. Smt. Chandana Dey, wife of Sri Ramakanta Dey, resident of R.K.
Mission Road, Silchar, Assam,
4. Smt. Anita Dey, wife of Sri Subrata Dey, resident of R.K. Mission Road,
Silchar, Assam,
5. Smt. Sampa Dey, daughter of late Rukkini Dey, resident of R.K. Mission
Road, Silchar, Assam,
6. Smt. Banani Deb(Rubi), wife of Sri Bappa Deb, resident of R.K. Mission
Road, Silchar, Assam.
......accused person-Respondent(s)
7. The State of Tripura.
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P,
Mr. S. Pal, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Date of hearing and Judgment : 16th December, 2022.
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also heard Mr. S. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant to
challenge the judgment dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Dharmanagar passed in CR(IPC)
No.02 of 2018 whereby the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents
No.1 to 6 under Section 498A of IPC.
[3] Brief facts are as under :
The case of the appellant, in brief, is that the accused persons
being the husband and in-laws of the complainant Smt. Lipika Deb used
to beat her up on demand of dowry worth Rs.2,00,000/- and lastly, on
08.04.2016 she was being beaten up severely for which she was bound to
return back to her father's house. On receipt of the complaint lodged by
the complainant, the learned court below took cognizance of offence
against the accused persons.
[4] The trial court took cognizance of the offence against the
accused persons. The complainant was examined under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C and summons was also issued against them. It is pertinent to
mention that charge under Section 498A of IPC was also framed against
them as they pleaded not guilty. The accused persons were examined
under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and failed to adduce any evidence in
support of their claim. The learned court raised the following point for
discussion :
"Whether the accused persons being the husband and the in-laws
of complainant Smt. Lipika Deb tortured her on demand of
Rs.2,00,000/-?"
[5] The prosecution examined as many as 3(three) witnesses
such as, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3. After hearing the witnesses the learned
trial Judge observed that although in the written complaint it was alleged
that she was being beaten up severely both physically and mentally on
demand of dowry, none of the witnesses revealed as to how the
complainant was assaulted by the accused persons. There was no medical
document to substantiate the fact of injury on the complainant. None of
the prosecution witnesses deposed that the filthy languages uttered by the
accused person to cause mental torture on the complainant. Subsequently,
the trial court found the case of the appellant was a vague one.
[6] After hearing the argument from both sides and after careful
examination of the evidence on record, the learned court below acquitted
the accused persons under Section 498A of IPC. The Judge observed that
in matrimonial cases, the principles of quick filing of FIR/Court
complaint do not strictly apply as in these cases emotions of the
complainant are involved. But a delay is of 22 months can lead not only
to embellishment of a story, but also cooking up a total new story by the
complainant against the accused persons. Therefore, such a long delay
should not be treated lightly. He further observed that the delay in lodging
the complaint remained unexplained. The operative portion of the
judgment reads as under :
"Hence, accused Sri Rajesh Dey, Sri Ramakanta Dey, Smt.
Chandana Dey, Smt. Anita Dey, Smt. Sampa Dey and Smt. Bhani
Deb(Rubi) are acquitted of the offence alleged and are set at liberty
forthwith. The bail bonds furnished u/s 437A of Cr.P.C shall
remain in force for next six months."
[7] Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the finding given by the learned court below is
perverse and illegal and the learned court below arrived at a definite
conclusion without proper appreciation of evidence on record which
resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. Counsel further contends that
the learned court below ought to have acquitted the accused persons and
all the witnesses have not been properly examined.
[8] On the other hand, Mr. S. Pal, learned counsel appearing for
the private respondents submits that the learned trial court has not
committed any error in acquitting the accused persons as they are being
falsely implicated in this case. Counsel further contends that the judgment
passed by the learned court below calls for no interference.
[9] After hearing learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below
has not committed any error in passing the judgment. On appreciating the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial, this Court
finds no incriminating materials against the accused persons and as such
the learned trial Judge has rightly passed the judgment in acquitting the
accused persons which calls for no interference.
[10] Accordingly, this Court finds no merits in the appeal and
directs dismissal of the same.
[11] Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Dipesh
