While on ground implementing the age old and time tested dictum that it is better to be late than never, the Calcutta High Court has in a refreshing, rational, remarkable and recent judgment titled Protap Singh Vs The State of West Bengal in CRA 518 of 1988 in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction that was heard on July 11, 2022 and then finally pronounced as recently as on September 30, 2022 has acquitted a man convicted by the Trial Court of abetting the suicide of his wife 36 years ago by inflicting cruelty upon her. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt before the Trial Court. The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) after going through the case in detail found fault with the findings of the Trial Judge who had given his ‘personal opinion’ pertaining to the culpability of the husband by stating in the order that he ‘thought’ that the husband is the main culprit, “who made the life of the victim miserable for dowry or for whatever reason whatsoever”. The Calcutta High Court minced no words to hold that, “Such findings of the learned Judge ‘for whatever reason whatsoever’ leading to the conviction of a person depriving him of his personal liberty is totally against the principles of natural justice and as such the findings of the Trial Court and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under appeal is thus set aside.” Very rightly so!
At the outset, the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) of Calcutta High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para of this learned judgment that, “The appeal is against an order of conviction under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 306 Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence being passed under Section 498A Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore by his judgment and order dated the 30th November, 1988 in Sessions Trial Case No. VI August of 1988.”
Briefly stated, the Bench then states in the next para of this brief judgment that, “The prosecution case in short is that the accused persons are three full brothers. Accused/appellant Pratap Singh is the husband of deceased Ranidevi Singh and is a school teacher. The other two accused persons are the in-laws. The background of the case is that the conjugal life of the victim was not happy. Deceased Ranidevi Singh was the victim of torture at the hands the accused persons over inadequate dowry. Ultimately, she took the fatal step by killing herself by suicide on 30.07.1986.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in this judgment that, “Prosecution witness no. 1 Sovamoni Saha is a member of the Paschim Banga Mahila Samity and the complainant in this case. She knows the accused and the deceased. She does not know the date of marriage of the parties. This witness has stated that the deceased approached her twice disclosing she was a victim of torture by the accused persons for want of dowry. On 30.07.1986 the victim committed suicide by burning. FIR was lodged by this witness (Exhibit 1). It is stated that the victim died within five years of marriage. In her cross examination she has stated that she resides within 500 ft. from the house of the accused persons. But she did not hear any cries from the house of the accused persons. This witness has further admitted, that she did not inform the police prior to the incident in this case, though the deceased had met her twice and made allegation against the accused persons. Nor did she report the same to her superior colleagues. The evidence recorded does not bear the signature of the said witness, the complainant in this case.”
Do note, the Bench points out then in this judgment that, “Prosecution witness no. 7 Khillu Mal is a neighbour of the deceased and the appellant. This witness has stated that the deceased led a conjugal life with the appellant for four to five years. Her family life was not happy. This witness was not speaking terms with the deceased. He has stated that he has witnessed quarrel between Ranidevi and the accused persons and he had seen Rani crying. This witness is also a member of the political party. He has stated on being cross examined that he heard about the ill-treatment on the victim from the neighbours.”
It is vital to note that the Bench expounds in this judgment after analyzing evidence that, “Admittedly the deceased wife committed suicide by burning. The fact of death by suicide was proved by PW 5 the Doctor who conducted the post mortem over the dead body of the deceased. His opinion is as follows:-
“The death in my opinion was due to serious shock as a result of the burn injury following the ante mortem whole body burn injury. Which was suicidal in nature.”
Surprisingly the post mortem report has not been proved by the prosecution and as such not marked Exhibit before the learned Sessions Judge.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench unequivocally points out in this judgment that, “From the evidence before the Trial Court it is clear that no family members of the deceased have been examined by the prosecution. No family member has filed the written complaint. There is no evidence on record stating that the deceased did not have any family members from her paternal side. A case of demand of dowry is substantiated by the paternal side family members of a woman. No family members have come before the Court to support the prosecution case that there was constant demand of dowry. Demand of dowry is made from the family members of the married woman and in order to prove such demand, the prosecution has to bring before the Court the best evidence so as to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Family members of the married woman are the persons from whom, such demands are made and they are the best witnesses to prove if any demand of dowry is made. The prosecution witnesses have stated that it was the deceased who had stated to them that demand of dowry had been made. None of these witnesses have stated that deceased had informed her family members on the paternal side regarding the demand of dowry and not being paid the dowry she was being tortured. The prosecution thus could not bring the best evidence before the Trial Court. It is most natural for a victim of cruelty for dowry that she will inform her parents and relatives about such torture and demand of dowry as it is expected that they will pay/meet the said demand. The prosecution thus could not bring the best evidence before the Trial Court.”
It is also worth noting that the Bench states upfront that, “The facts and circumstances in the present appeal has proved that the victim committed suicide. Whether the death is within the period of seven years from the date of her marriage could not be proved as none of the witnesses could clearly stated as to when the victim had got married or as to how many years she had been married. The witnesses have all contradicted each other regarding the period of marriage. There is no specific evidence before the Trial Court to substantiate the charge under Section 498A IPC as discussed above. As such the presumption under the said provision of law clearly stands rebutted.”
Be it noted, the Bench minces no words to point out in simple and straightforward language that, “From the facts and circumstances and evidence on record both oral and documentary it is seen that the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge clearly failed to prove that the appellant was guilty of inflicting cruelty of such nature upon the victim which left her with no choice but to commit suicide. The prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 498A and also the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There are no ingredients (evidence) to substantiate the charge that the appellant instigated the deceased by inflicting cruelty to such an extent that she was compelled to commit suicide. Neither is there any evidence to prove that the appellant intentionally aided in any manner what so ever leading to the suicide of the deceased.”
Conclusion
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then aptly concludes this noteworthy judgment by holding most explicitly that, “The incident in this case occurred on 30.07.1986 (36 years ago). From the discussion above and the materials on record including the evidence before the Trial Court and the relevant provision of law, it is found that the prosecution clearly failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt before the Trial Court. The findings of the Trial Judge shows that the appreciation of evidence before the Court was not in accordance with law. The Trial Judge has discussed that the absence of witnesses from the victim’s father side would not help the Court as they were distant outsider in Uttar Pradesh. The said findings of the Trial Judge is against the interest of justice and thus against the appellant as the best evidence has been withheld from the Court. Even though the parents reside in Uttar Pradesh, the demand of dowry if any will only be within the knowledge of the parents of the deceased and as such they were the best witnesses and the best evidence not being brought before the Court goes against the prosecution. The findings of the learned Trial Judge relating to dowry also is not in accordance with law and is a casual discussion made as per his personal opinion and finally the Trial Judge thought that the husband/appellant is the main culprit and held:- “I think that the husband is the main culprit, who made the life of the victim miserable for dowry or for whatever reason whatsoever” Such findings of the learned Judge “for whatever reason whatsoever” leading to the conviction of a person depriving him of his personal liberty is totally against the principles of natural justice and as such the findings of the Trial Court and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under appeal is thus set aside. The appeal thus stands allowed. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of all charge and discharged/released from his Bail bond. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court immediately. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.”
All told, we thus see that the Calcutta High Court has meticulously explained why the man deserved to be acquitted who was convicted wrongly 34 years ago by the Trial Court for allegedly abetting wife’s suicide. It is better to be late than never. The lost years of the man who was convicted wrongly cannot be returned back but it is a matter of some solace that he finally stands acquitted by the Calcutta High Court.
Sanjeev Sirohi