{"id":79026,"date":"1993-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993"},"modified":"2015-08-09T09:29:31","modified_gmt":"2015-08-09T03:59:31","slug":"state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993","title":{"rendered":"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1418, \t\t 1994 SCC (1)\t 73<\/div>\n
Author: G Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, G.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF W.B.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nORILAL JAISWAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/09\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR 1418\t\t  1994 SCC  (1)\t 73\n JT 1993 (6)\t69\t  1993 SCALE  (3)845\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nG.N. RAY, J.- This appeal has been preferred by the State of
\nWest Bengal against the judgment of acquittal dated May\t 14,
\n1990 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
\nin  Criminal  Appeal  No. 195 of  1990.\t  By  the  aforesaid
\njudgment, the conviction and sentences against the  accused,
\nShri  Orilal  Jaiswal  and his\tmother,\t Smt  Gujarati\tDebi
\nJaiswal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 12th Bench of
\nthe  City Sessions Court, Calcutta on February 29,  1990  in
\nSessions Trial No. 1 of 1990 was set aside by the High Court
\nand  the  accused  were acquitted of  the  conviction  under
\nSection\t 306  read  with Section 34 IPC and  sentence  of  5
\nyears’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1000 in  default
\nsimple\timprisonment  for  3  months  and  conviction  under
\nSection\t 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of\t one
\nyear rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000 in  default
\nto suffer simple imprisonment for three months.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The prosecution case in short is that Usha Jaiswal\t had
\ncommitted suicide by hanging on April 19, 1986 in the  house
\nof  her husband and the in laws within a year from the\tdate
\nof  marriage which was solemnised between Usha\tJaiswal\t and
\nthe  accused 1, Orilal Jaiswal on May 31, 1985.\t It  is\t the
\ncase  of the prosecution that it was a\tnegotiated  marriage
\nand according to the demand of the accused persons and other
\nmembers of the family of in-laws sufficient dowry  including
\ncolour T.V., motor cycle, gold ornaments etc. had been given
\nat  the time of marriage.  The prosecution case is that\t the
\ndeceased,  Usha Jaiswal, who was only 20 years old had\tbeen
\ntreated\t cruelly  and had been tortured\t both  mentally\t and
\nphysically by the accused.  It has been alleged that  within
\na few days after the marriage, the father-in-law of  accused
\n2 had died and accused 2 had treated the deceased cruelly by
\ntelling her that she was a woman of evil luck (alakshmi) and
\nbecause of her evil luck, the\t   father-in-law  had\tdied
\nshortly\t after the marriage.  It has also been alleged\tthat
\nafter\tthe  marriage,\tthe  deceased,\tUsha  Jaiswal,\t had
\nconceived  but\tthere  had  been  an  abortion\tafter  being
\nadmitted  in the hospital.  Accused 2, the mother-in-law  of
\nUsha Jaiswal caused severe mental pain by telling her in the
\nhospital  itself that she was a woman of evil luck and\tthat
\nshe  had swallowed her baby and she should  commit  suicide.
\nIt has also been alleged that\t   accused 1, the husband of
\nthe  deceased often used to come home drunk  and  physically
\nassault\t the deceased.\tBoth the husband and his mother\t had
\nalso caused severe mental torture to the deceased by telling
\nthat she had brought bridal presents of sub-standard quality
\nand  such articles should be taken back and dowry  gifts  of
\ngood quality should be brought.\t It has been alleged by\t the
\nprosecution  that  as a result of such physical\t and  mental
\ntorture\t by  the     accused persons,  the  deceased  became
\nunhappy\t and on several occasions when she had come  to\t her
\nfather’s house, she complained that she had been
\n78<\/span>
\nmaltreated  and tortured both physically and  mentally\twith
\ncruelty\t by  the  husband and mother-in-law  in\t the  manner
\naforesaid.   It has also been alleged that even on  the\t day
\nwhen  the deceased had committed suicide, namely,  on  April
\n19,  1986, accused 1, Orilal Jaiswal, came to  the  parental
\nhouse  of the deceased at about 10.00 a.m. and informed\t the
\nmother\tof  the deceased that his wife and mother  had\tbeen
\nquarrelling  and she should go to his house  for  settlement
\nbut the mother of the deceased then informed accused 1\tthat
\nshe  would  send her son the next day to the  house  of\t the
\naccused\t persons  but shortly thereafter, a brother  of\t the
\ndeceased  came to the house and informed the  other  brother
\nand  the  mother that something had happened  to  his  elder
\nsister,\t namely, the deceased and she had been taken to\t the
\nhospital.   The\t elder brother and  thereafter\tparents\t and
\nother relations of the deceased rushed to the hospital\twhen
\nthey  were  informed  that the\tdeceased  Usha\tJaiswal\t had
\ncommitted suicide.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The brother of the deceased, Om Parkash, however,\tmade
\na  statement in the police station that his sister had\tbeen
\nmurdered but his statement was not treated as FIR.  The next
\nday,  namely, on April 20, 1986, the mother of the  deceased
\nmade  a statement before the police which was  recorded\t and
\ntreated as FIR.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It transpires from the postmortem report that signs  of
\ndeath  by hanging were present and according to\t the  doctor
\nconducting the postmortem examination the deceased had\tdied
\ndue  to\t hanging.   The doctor also noted  a  few  marks  of
\nabrasions  on the cheek and also on the other parts  of\t the
\nbody  which  according\tto the doctor  were  ante-mortem  in
\nnature.\t  On being questioned at the time of deposition\t the
\ndoctor had also stated that the mark of injury on the  cheek
\nof the deceased was likely to be caused by a slap and  other
\ninjuries  were also likely to be caused by fist\t and  blows.
\nThe  doctor,  however, stated on being\tcross-examined\tthat
\nsuch  injuries\tcould  also be caused if  the  deceased\t had
\ndashed\tagainst a hard substance and the injury on the\tneck
\ncould be caused by the friction of the nylon rope.\n<\/p>\n
5.   After considering the evidences adduced in the case and
\nother  materials on record the learned Sessions\t Judge\theld
\nthat  the  case\t was not  properly  investigated  by  police
\nofficer\t in charge and there were lapses on the part of\t the
\ninvestigating officer and witnesses for prosecution had\t not
\nbeen  examined by the police at an early date.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge commented on the performance of PW 14,\tShri
\nBimal Chander Biswas, a Sub-Inspector of Calcutta Police who
\nwas  the  investigating officer in the\tcase.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge observed that the investigating officer\t had
\ndeviated  from\this  normal duties  of\tinvestigation  in  a
\nserious\t case and most of his statement which was given\t out
\nat  the time of cross-examination could not be treated as  a
\nsubstantive statement either for the prosecution or for\t the
\ndefence.   PW 2, Kamla Jaiswal, the mother of the  deceased,
\nstated\tthat  on  May 31, 1985, the deceased  was  given  in
\nmarriage with accused 1, Orilal Jaiswal and sufficient dowry
\nhad been given at the time of marriage as per demands of the
\nparents\t of Orilal.  PW 2 further stated in  her  deposition
\nthat  after  one month of the marriage, the  deceased,\tUsha
\nJaiswal, came to their
\n79<\/span>
\nresidence  but she had noticed her daughter in\tanxiety\t and
\nshe  had been crying all the time.  She had  enquired  about
\nthe reason and then she was told by the deceased that  since
\nthe  father-in-law  of\ther  mother-in-law  had\t died  after
\nthree\/four  days  of  the marriage,  the  mother-in-law\t had
\nabused\ther by telling that she was ‘alakshmi’\tand  brought
\nmisfortune.  On other occasions also the deceased had stated
\nthat her husband used to come drunk and abuse her and he had
\nmaltreated  her\t and even assaulted her physically  and\t had
\nbeen telling her to take back all the bridal presents as the
\nsame  were  of inferior quality and bring  goods  of  better
\nquality.   PW  2  Kamla had also stated\t that  her  youngest
\ndaughter used to visit the matrimonial home of the  deceased
\nand having come to learn from her that the deceased had\t not
\nbeen  keeping  well,  she was brought  to  their  house\t and
\nthereafter  she was admitted to the hospital where  she\t had
\ndelivered  a dead child.  The mother-in-law of the  deceased
\ncame  to the hospital to see the deceased and she  told\t the
\ndeceased  that she was a woman of bad omen and vile even  to
\nthe  extent of swallowing her baby.  The  mother-in-law\t had
\nalso  told her daughter that she should commit suicide.\t  In
\nher deposition, the mother of the deceased also stated\tthat
\nthe in-laws also demanded fresh dowries of articles such  as
\nfridge\tetc.   She also stated that a few  days\t before\t the
\noccurrence,  the deceased had come to her residence and\t was
\ntelling\t that she would not go to her husband’s place  since
\nthe husband and mother-in-law had been treating her cruelly.
\nShe  also stated that on the day of committing\tsuicide\t the
\naccused,  Orilal Jaiswal, came to her house at\tabout  10.00
\na.m.  and told her to go to their house since  her  daughter
\nhad  been quarrelling with his mother.\tWhen  she  requested
\nOrilal Jaiswal to convince her mother Orilal replied that he
\nwas  unable to say anything to her mother.  PW 2 Kamla\ttold
\nOrilal\tJaiswal that on the next day she would send her\t son
\nto  their  house.  Shortly thereafter, in between  12.00  to
\n1.00  p.m., she had received the information that there\t had
\nbeen something wrong with her daughter who had been taken to
\nthe hospital.  Immediately his son, Om Parkash, went to\t the
\nhospital and thereafter she and other members of the  family
\nwent  to the hospital where she was told that  her  daughter
\nhad killed herself by hanging.\tShe stated in her deposition
\nthat she became shocked on hearing the news of death of\t her
\ndaughter  and was not in a position to make  any  statement.
\nShe  was taken home and she also became\t unconscious.\tNext
\nday,  she  requested her husband to take her to\t the  police
\nstation\t to make a statement.  Accordingly, on the next\t day
\nshe  had  been taken to the police station and\tshe  made  a
\nstatement  which was written in Bengali and  such  statement
\nwas treated as FIR by the police.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Kumari Asha Jaiswal the youngest sister of the deceased
\nwas also examined as PW 5, and she had also stated that\t the
\nmother-in-law of her deceased sister had maltreated her\t and
\nused  to tell her that she was the reason for the  death  of
\nher father-in-law and she used to describe her as a woman of
\nevil  luck  and that she should not live.  She\talso  stated
\nthat  on  the  day when her sister  had\t committed  suicide,
\nOrilal\tJaiswal came at about 10.00 a.m. to their house\t and
\ntold her mother that her deceased sister and her  mother-in-
\nlaw  were  quarrelling\tand  Orilal  Jaiswal  requested\t her
\nmother-in-law to go to
\n80<\/span>
\ntheir  residence.  The mother expressed her inability to  go
\nbut told that she would send her eldest son, Om Parkash,  to
\nthe house of the accused on the next day.  At about 12 noon,
\non the very same day they got the information that something
\nhad  happened to her sister.  Thereafter, they had  been  to
\nthe hospital where they got the information that the  sister
\nhad  died by hanging.  She had stated that she had told\t the
\npolice that the accused, Orilal Jaiswal, under the influence
\nof liquor used to tell her deceased sister to take back\t the
\nbridal\tpresents because such articles were of\tbad  quality
\nand  he\t also used to beat her.\t The elder  brother  of\t the
\ndeceased  Om  Parkash  was also examined  as  a\t prosecution
\nwitness (PW 6).\t He had also stated that his deceased sister
\nwas subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused.
\nIt appears that besides the elder brother of the deceased Om
\nParkash\t PW  6, other relations of the\tdeceased  were\talso
\nexamined by the prosecution but since such persons were\t not
\nexamined  at an early date it was suggested by\tthe  defence
\nthat their evidence should not be taken into consideration.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  learned  Sessions  Judge inter alia  came  to\t the
\nfinding that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging\t the
\nFIR  by\t the mother of the deceased.  It  appears  that\t the
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge has accepted the explanation of\t the
\nmother of the deceased that on hearing the news of death  of
\nher  daughter by committing suicide, she became\t unwell\t and
\nwas  not in a position to make any statement on 19th but  on
\nthe  next  day she made a statement to the police  and\tsuch
\nstatement  to  the police was treated as FIR.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge\t has  also noted that  the  brother  of\t the
\ndeceased  on  the very same day made  statement\t before\t the
\npolice\twherein he stated that his sister had  been  treated
\ncruelly by the accused persons ever since the marriage.\t The
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge has also noted that the injuries  by
\nway of abrasions noted on the person of the deceased by\t the
\ndoctor\tconducting postmortem examination was likely  to  be
\ncaused\tby slaps and fists.  The learned Sessions Judge\t has
\nobserved that although in the cross-examination, the  doctor
\nconducting  the postmortem examination had stated in  answer
\nto  the\t suggestion  given by the learned  counsel  for\t the
\naccused that such injuries were also possible due to  impact
\nagainst a hard substance and the abrasion noted on the\tneck
\nof  the deceased could be caused by a friction from a  nylon
\nrope  which was a rough substance, such injuries were  ante-
\nmortem\tin nature it was not likely that the  said  injuries
\nwould  be  caused on the person of the deceased\t by  hitting
\nagainst\t wall or other hard object after she  had  committed
\nsuicide.   The learned Sessions Judge was of the  view\tthat
\nthere  was  a  positive\t evidence  from\t the  side  of\t the
\nprosecution  that shortly after the marriage,  the  deceased
\nhad been treated cruelly and mother-in-law had described her
\nas  a  woman of evil luck and held her responsible  for\t the
\ndeath  of  her father-in-law.  The  mother-in-law  had\talso
\nabused\tthe deceased when she had lost her child  by  saying
\nthat she was a woman of evil luck who had even swallowed her
\nown  baby  and\tshe  should  commit  suicide.\tThe  learned
\nSessions Judge was of the view that there were evidences  to
\nthe effect that the deceased had been subjected to  physical
\nand mental torture by the accused and she was asked to\ttake
\nback  the  bridal presents by indicating that  the  articles
\nwere of
\n81<\/span>
\nsub-standard  quality.\tThe learned Sessions Judge has\talso
\nnoted  that  although the evidences about the  cruelty\thave
\nbeen  given  by\t very close relations of  the  deceased\t but
\nsimply\ton  that  score\t the same  were\t not  liable  to  be
\ndiscarded.   The learned Sessions Judge has also noted\tthat
\nunder  Section\t113-A of the Indian Evidence Act  there\t was
\nlegal\tpresumption  that  the\taccused\t had   abetted\t the
\ncommission  of\tsuicide and such presumption  has  not\tbeen
\nrebutted  by any reliable evidence adduced on behalf of\t the
\naccused persons.  The learned Sessions Judge has also  noted
\nthat  the deceased had committed suicide within a year\tfrom
\nthe  date of her marriage and in view of the  evidence\tthat
\nthe  deceased had been subjected to cruelty and\t mental\t and
\nphysical torture the provision of Section 498-A IPC was also
\nattracted in the case.\n<\/p>\n
 8. The learned Sessions Judge therefore came to the finding
\nthat  even if the evidences of PWs 5 to 10 were left out  of
\nconsideration, there was no reason to doubt the veracity  of
\nthe  evidences of the mother, PW 2 regarding the  complicity
\nof the accused persons and from such evidence it  transpired
\nthat the accused persons had systematically abused  deceased
\nUsha Jaiswal sometimes by calling her as a woman of bad omen
\nand  sometimes\tasking for taking back\tbridal\tpresents  of
\ninferior quality and she was also abused for the failure  to
\nbring further dowry from her parental house.  It was due  to
\nsuch  systematic abuses caused on the deceased that she\t had
\nzilted (sic) from her normal mental frame and she was forced
\nto end her life by hanging.  In that view of the matter, the
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge held that both the  accused  persons
\nwere  guilty  of the offences under Section  306  read\twith
\nSection 34 IPC and under Section 498-A read with Section  34
\nIPC  and accordingly he passed the order of  conviction\t and
\nsentences as indicated hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The High Court, however, came to the finding inter alia
\nthat there was no convincing evidence of systematic  cruelty
\nor physical or mental torture of the deceased by the accused
\npersons.  The High Court has noted that although prosecution
\nhas examined 19 witnesses but the conviction was based\tupon
\nthe  evidences of PW 2 and PW 6 namely the mother and  elder
\nbrother of the deceased.  The High Court has held that\tonly
\nallegation made in the FIR was that accused 2, mother-in-law
\nof  the\t deceased had tortured her mentally by\tcalling\t her
\nwoman of evil luck and the deceased was mentally tortured by
\ntelling that the marriage gifts were of sub-standard quality
\nand  the  same should be returned.  The High Court  has\t not
\naccepted  the  prosecution  case  that\tUsha  had  committed
\nsuicide because of such mental torture.\t The High Court\t has
\nnot also accepted the explanation given by the mother of the
\ndeceased,  PW  2,  for\tnot making the FIR  on\tthe  day  of
\noccurrence.   It has been held by the learned Judges of\t the
\nHigh Court that if the mother had become unconscious, one of
\nher  sons  could have gone to the police station to  file  a
\nwritten complaint and it is not known why the father of\t the
\nvictim\tand  other grown up sons of PW 2 did not go  to\t the
\npolice station to make the FIR.\t A decision of this Court in
\nthe case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of
\n82<\/span>
\nMaharashtra 1 has been referred to by the learned Judges  of
\nthe  High Court for holding that the delay in recording\t the
\nstatement of material witnesses caused a cloud of  suspicion
\nand  the  credibility  of the entire warp and  woof  of\t the
\nprosecution  story.  The High Court has also held that\tfrom
\nthe FIR it transpired that the accused 2, Smt Gujarati Debi,
\nhad tortured the deceased mentally by saying ‘alakshml’\t but
\nsuch  description  of  the deceased had\t been  made  on\t two
\noccasions  only.  There is no allegation against  accused  1
\nthat  he  had ever induced her to  commit  suicide.   Hence,
\nthere  was  no\tcase under Section 306 of  the\tIPC  against
\naccused\t 1,  Orilal Jaiswal.  The High Court has  also\theld
\nthat  although the mother of the deceased, PW 2, had  stated
\nin her deposition that a demand was made for fresh  articles
\nsuch as fridge etc., such case was not indicated in the\t FIR
\nand PW 2 had also not stated such fact to the  investigating
\nofficer\t about demand of further dowry.\t The High Court\t has
\nalso  held  that although allegation had been  made  against
\naccused 1 that he used to come home intoxicated and used  to
\nphysically torture Usha Jaiswal but there is no\t independent
\nand  reliable  evidence that Orilal Jaiswal came  drunk\t and
\ntortured  her physically and no circumstantial\tevidence  to
\nthat effect can be found.  The High Court has also held that
\nthe  evidence of PW 6, Om Parkash, about  the  ill-treatment
\nmeted out to the deceased should not be accepted because  he
\nhad  not  heard anything directly from the deceased  but  he
\nonly  heard  such  allegations\tfrom  her  mother.    Hence,
\ndeposition of PW 6 Om Parkash was only hearsay evidence\t and
\nno  reliance should be placed on that.\tThe High  Court\t has
\nalso drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution case
\nfor  not examining the father of the deceased.\tIt has\tbeen
\nindicated  by  the  High  Court\t that  although\t a   medical
\ncertificate  has been produced to indicate that\t the  father
\nwas a cancer patient when the trial had started but there is
\nno evidence to indicate whether the condition of the  father
\nhad deteriorated between the date of occurrence and the date
\nof  trial.   The High Court has noted that as  a  matter  of
\nfact, the father had accompanied PW 2 and PW 6 at  Muchipara
\npolice\tstation at the time of lodging the FIR.\t  Hence,  he
\nwas  able  to move at that time.  The High Court  has  noted
\nthat  there is no evidence as to how and in what manner\t the
\nvictim\thad  received injuries noted by the  doctor  holding
\npostmortem examination.\t The High Court has held that  there
\nis  no evidence as to who had caused such injuries.  On\t the
\ncontrary,  there is evidence that such injuries\t could\thave
\nbeen  caused by hitting against a hard substance.  The\tHigh
\nCourt  has  come  to the finding that  the  prosecution\t had
\nfailed\tto establish the charges against the appellants\t and
\nthe cruelty as enumerated in Section 498-A IPC had not\tbeen
\nestablished  and if such cruelty had not  been\testablished,
\nthe  presumption tinder Section 113A of the Indian  Evidence
\nAct  cannot be pressed into service.   Accordingly,  Section
\n306  IPC  also\tcannot\tbe  invoked.   Since  there  is\t  no
\nindependent evidence of inducement to commit suicide  either
\nby  the mother-in-law or by the husband of the deceased\t the
\nconviction of the accused persons was unwarranted.  In\tthat
\nview of the matter the High Court set aside the
\n1  (1978) 4 SCC 371 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1 : AIR 1979 SC 135
\n83<\/span>
\nconviction  and sentences and passed the order of  acquittal
\nin favour of both the accused.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The learned counsel for the appellant submits that\t the
\nHigh  Court  has taken a very unreasonable  view  completely
\noverlooking the clinching evidences about the complicity  of
\nboth the accused for the offences charged against them.\t  It
\nhas been contended by the learned counsel for the  appellant
\nthat on April 19 itself the elder brother of the deceased Om
\nParkash\t Jaiswal apprehending that the accused had  murdered
\nhis  sister  reported  to  the\tpolice\tstation\t about\tsuch
\noffence.   A  written complaint was filed in  the  Muchipara
\npolice\tstation which was acknowledged by a receipt  granted
\nby  the police officer.\t Such complaint was  simply  ignored
\nand it is stated that such report was sent to the  Assistant
\nCommissioner  of  Police  at the  Police  Head\tQuarters  at
\nLalbazar.   It has transpired from the evidence of PW  6  Om
\nParkash that later on at the request of police\tauthorities,
\nzeroxed\t copy  of  the said complaint  was  supplied  by  Om
\nParkash.  The mother of the deceased Kamla Jaiswal PW 2 made
\na  statement before the police officer in  Muchipara  police
\nstation next day.  Such statement was reduced to writing  by
\nthe  police officer and was treated as FIR.  Om Parkash\t was
\nalso  examined by the police on April 20.  By that time,  Om
\nParkash\t came to learn that his sister was not\tmurdered  by
\nthe  accused  but  she\thad ended  her\tlife  by  committing
\nsuicide.   Hence, he made statement to that effect.   It  is
\napparent  from\tthe FIR and also from the  statement  of  Om
\nParkash to the police that the husband and mother-in-law  of
\nthe  deceased  namely  both  the  accused  had\ttreated\t the
\ndeceased with cruelty almost from the very beginning of\t her
\nmarried\t life  and she was subjected to\t both  physical\t and
\nmental torture by various acts like abusing her as woman  of
\nevil luck and suggesting that she should better end her life
\nby committing suicide.\tSuch abuse was not just made once in
\nthe  beginning\tbut  when there\t was  miscarriage  of  first
\npregnancy  in  the  hospital  accused  2  again\t abused\t the
\nunfortunate  daughter-in-law by calling her a vile woman  of
\nevil  luck (alakshmi) who had even swallowed her  own  child
\nand  suggested\tthat she should end her life  by  committing
\nsuicide.  The poor daughter-in-law was humiliated by telling
\nher  that the bridal presents were of inferior\tquality\t and
\nshould\tbe taken back.\tShe was oppressed by making  further
\ndowry  demands for fridge, V.C.R., etc.\t It is the  positive
\ncase  made in FIR and in the statement of Om Parkash to\t the
\npolice\tthat the deceased Usha became unhappy from the\tvery
\nbeginning  of  her married life and she\t was  being  abused,
\nhumiliated  and\t subjected to mental  cruelty  and  physical
\nassault\t till she had ended her life.  Even  shortly  before
\nshe  had  committed suicide, there was quarrel\tbetween\t the
\ndeceased  and  accused 2. The doctor  conducting  postmortem
\nexamination  had  noted there were Injuries  on\t her  person
\nwhich  according to the doctor were ante-mortem\t in  nature.
\nDuring\this  examination  the doctor has  stated  that\tsuch
\ninjuries were likely to be caused by slap and fist and blow.
\nAlthough  in  the cross-examination, the doctor\t has  stated
\nthat  such injuries are also likely to be caused by  dashing
\nagainst\t hard  object and the injury on the  neck  could  be
\ncaused\tby  a friction with rough nylon\t rope,\tthe  learned
\nSessions Judge has given a very cogent reason as to
\n84<\/span>
\nwhy the possibility of sustaining such injuries, which\twere
\nante-mortem in nature, by dashing against hard object should
\nbe  discarded.\tIt is only unfortunate that the\t High  Court
\nhas  not considered such reasoning of the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge in their proper perspective.  The learned counsel\t for
\nthe appellant has submitted that completely overlooking\t the
\nfact that the brother Om Parkash made a written complaint in
\nthe police station on the date of incident itself, the\tHigh
\nCourt  drew  an adverse inference against the  case  of\t the
\nprosecution on the ground that even if mother became  unwell
\nafter  hearing the death news of the daughter and could\t not
\nmake statement, father, brother or other elder member of the
\nfamily ought to have lodged FIR without any delay and  there
\nwas  no\t reason for lodging the FIR by the mother  the\tnext
\nday.   He has submitted that the family of the deceased\t was
\nunder a great shock because of the tragic end of Usha within
\nabout ten months of her marriage.  It is quite natural\tthat
\nthe  mother had suffered great mental shock and as such\t she
\nwas not in a position to make any statement to the police on
\nthe  date of incident.\tThere was nothing unnatural  in\t her
\nconduct.   The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held\tthat
\nthere  was  a  very reasonable explanation  for\t the  mother
\nmaking statement to the police on the next day.\t It has been
\ncontended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Usha
\nlived only for about ten months after her marriage.   During
\nsuch  a short period, she had been abused and  mentally\t and
\nphysically tortured all the time.  The High Court was not at
\nall  justified\tin  holding that there was  no\tevidence  of
\ncruelty\t and  abuse from the husband and evidence  of  abuse
\nfrom  the mother-in-law related to two occasions only.\t The
\nHigh  Court has ignored the positive evidence that  she\t was
\nsubjected to physical and mental torture all throughout\t her
\nwedded life and several instances of abuse and torture\twere
\nmentioned.   The  learned  counsel  for\t the  appellant\t has
\nsubmitted that the deceased was expected to tell her  mother
\nand  other close relations about her unfortunate  experience
\nin  the\t house of in-laws.  Necessarily,  mother  and  close
\nrelations  would be witnesses of the cruel  treatment  meted
\nout   to  the  deceased.   Despite  clear  and\t unambiguous
\nevidences  about  cruelty  the High Court  unjustly  and  on
\nflimsy\tgrounds did not accept the prosecution case and\t set
\naside  the  well reasoned judgment of the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge.\tThe learned counsel for the appellant has  submitted
\nthat  the reasoning of the High Court in basing its  finding
\nare strained and against the clinching evidences adduced  in
\nthe  case.   The  impugned judgment has\t resulted  in  gross
\nfailure\t of  justice  and  should  be  set  aside  and\t the
\nconviction  and\t sentences imposed by the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge should be upheld by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The   learned  counsel  appearing\tfor   the   accused-
\nrespondents,  however, disputed the  aforesaid\tcontentions.
\nIt  has\t been  submitted  by the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents  that in a criminal trial, the  offence  charged
\nagainst\t the  accused must be proved beyond  any  reasonable
\ndoubt.\t  However   grave   and\t intriguing   may   be\t the
\ncircumstances,\tthe court should ensure that the  burden  of
\nstrict proof on the prosecution is not covertly\t substituted
\nby  surmise  and conjecture.  Drawing our attention  to\t the
\nfindings  of  the  High\t Court\tand  the  reasonings   given
\ntherefore, the learned counsel for the
\n85<\/span>
\nrespondents  has submitted that it is unfortunate that\tUsha
\nended  her  life  within a year of  her\t marriage  but\tsuch
\nincident, however lamentable, should not outweigh the proper
\nanalysis of the facts established in the case.\tIt has\tbeen
\nsubmitted  that\t against the husband, there is\tno  evidence
\nthat  he  had even induced or suggested\t that  the  deceased
\nshould\tend  her life.\tAllegation of  physical\t and  mental
\ntorture\t by the husband are only wild allegations.   It\t has
\nnot   been  established\t by  any  convincing   evidence\t  by
\ndisinterested  persons\tthat the husband used to  come\thome
\ndrunk  and then abuse and assault the wife.   Such  incident
\nwould  have been noticed in a tenanted house  having  common
\npassage\t as the High Court has rightly pointed out.   Demand
\nfor  a further dowry was not indicated by the mother in\t FIR
\nand such case was an embellishment at a later stage so as to
\nbring  the prosecution case within the provision of  Section
\n498-A  IPC.   The High Court has rightly not  accepted\tsuch
\nfalse  allegation by giving cogent reasons and no  exception
\nshould be made to the findings of the High Court against the
\nmother-in-law  namely accused 2, it has been  alleged  that,
\nshe  had  addressed  the  deceased as  woman  of  evil\tluck
\n(alakshmi)  only  on two occasions and\ton  such  occasions,
\nsuggestion  for\t committing suicide was also  given  to\t the
\ndeceased.  For good reasons High Court has not accepted such
\ncase.  Om Parkash (PW 6) firstly alleged that it was a\tcase
\nof murder but when he understood that such false  allegation
\nwould  be  of  no consequence, he made a  statement  to\t the
\npolice\ton  the next day making various\t false\tallegations.
\nThe FIR lodged by mother was a belated one and in a cool and
\ncalculated manner various false allegations were  introduced
\nin  FIR.   Such\t unjustified  delay  in\t lodging  FIR\twith
\nconsequential  cooking up a false case is  not\tcountenanced
\nfavourably  by law courts.  The High Court by relying  on  a
\ndecision of this Court in a case of belated FIR declined  to
\nplace  any reliance on the FIR.\t No tenant or neighbour\t has
\ndeposed\t that the husband or mother-in-law used to abuse  or
\nassault\t the  deceased.\t  There\t is  no\t evidence  from\t any
\ndisinterested  witnesses that at 10.00 a.m. or\taround\tthat
\ntime  on the date of incident there was any quarrel  between
\nthe  deceased and her mother-in-law or any other  member  of
\nthe  family.  In the aforesaid circumstances, there  was  no
\noccasion  to  assume that marks of simple  injuries  on\t the
\nperson\tof  the deceased since noted by the  doctor  holding
\npostmortem examination, had been caused by slap and fist and
\nblow  particularly when the doctor has categorically  stated
\nthat  such injuries could be caused by hitting against\thard
\nobject\tand  on account of friction from a nylon  rope.\t  It
\ncame  out  from the evidence of the mother of  the  deceased
\nKamla  (PW 2) that she had not been staying in Calcutta\t but
\nshe  used  to  come  to\t Calcutta  on  occasions.   In\tsuch
\ncircumstances, it was expected to have some letters  written
\nby  the\t deceased to her parents  staying  outside  Calcutta
\ncontaining allegations of maltreatment and acts of  cruelty.
\nThe High Court has rightly noted that excepting\t depositions
\nby  very  close relations with embellishments, there  is  no
\nreliable  corroborative\t evidence.  Hence,  the\t prosecution
\ncase  was not established beyond all reasonable\t doubts\t and
\nthe  accused were entitled to well-recognised  principle  of
\ngiving\t benefit  of  doubt.   The  learned   counsel\thas,
\ntherefore, submitted that the
\n86<\/span>
\njudgment  of  acquittal\t based on cogent  reasons  does\t not
\nwarrant any interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.  After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the rival contentions made  by
\nthe  learned counsels appearing for the parties, it  appears
\nto  us\tthat the judgment of acquittal passed  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  after  setting  aside the  order\t of  conviction\t and
\nsentences  passed  by  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,\tCity
\nSessions Court, Calcutta cannot be justified and the same is
\nagainst the weight of the evidence adduced in the case.\t  We
\nhave  already indicated the reasonings of the High Court  in
\nsome  detail.  We may indicate here that the High Court\t has
\nsummed\tup  the following circumstances for the\t purpose  of
\nholding\t that  a  grave doubt has been\traised\tagainst\t the
\nprosecution story:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  There  is\tno  satisfactory  explanation  of  delay  in
\nlodging the FIR.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) There is no dying declaration or suicidal note.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  There is no letter during the subsistence of
\nmarriage.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) There is no letter addressed to the mother who used  to
\nlive outside Calcutta most of the time.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  There   is\t no  complaint\teither\tby  the\t father\t  or
\nfather-in-law of the victim.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) There is no evidence regarding the injuries received by
\nthe deceased or the maltreatment.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\t  No specific date has been given when the  deceased
\nUsha  had  allegedly told her mother about  the\t demand\t for
\ndowry  or the maltreatment and no specific date or time\t has
\nbeen given for making such demand.\n<\/p>\n
(viii)\t  Although  the adult members of the family  of\t the
\ndeceased consisting of four brothers, sisters and  brothers-
\nin-law and father are though the residents of Calcutta,\t the
\ndeceased had never complained anything to them.\n<\/p>\n
(ix) The neighbour or tenants have not also been examined.
\nIt  is, therefore, necessary to consider the correctness  of
\nsuch reasonings.  So far as the explanation for the delay in
\nlodging the FIR is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has
\nheld that the mother has given a satisfactory explanation as
\nto  why she made statement to the police on the day next  to
\nthe  date of incident in question.  It transpires  from\t the
\nevidence  of the mother that sometime between 12.00 to\t1.00
\np.m.  the  mother  and\tthe other  family  members  got\t the
\ninformation  that something had happened to Usha  for  which
\nshe had been removed to the hospital.  The elder brother  Om
\nParkash immediately left for the hospital and thereafter the
\nmother,\t father\t and other family members  of  the  deceased
\nrushed\tto the hospital where they came to learn that  their
\ndaughter had died by committing suicide in the house of\t the
\nin-laws.   There is no difficulty to imagine that such\tnews
\nhad  caused a great mental shock to the mother\tparticularly
\nwhen the deceased had to end her life within 10 months\tfrom
\nthe date of marriage.  If on getting the news of
\n87<\/span>
\nsuicide\t being\tcommitted by the  daughter,  mother  becomes
\nunwell\tand  is\t not in a proper mental frame  to  make\t any
\nstatement  to the police, no exception can be taken to\tsuch
\nconduct.  It should be borne in mind that the elder  brother
\nof  the deceased gave a written complaint to the  police  on
\nthe  very day of the incident by indicating that  there\t had
\nnot  been any natural death of his sister and he  felt\tthat
\nhis  sister had been murdered by her in-laws.  On  the\tvery
\nnext  date,  the  mother  made a  statement  to\t the  police
\nindicating  the\t plight\t of her deceased  daughter  and\t the
\nphysical and mental torture to which she was subjected to by
\nthe accused.  Such statement of the mother has been  treated
\nas  an FIR in the case.\t In the aforesaid circumstances,  it
\ncannot\tbe held that there has been  unjustified  inordinate
\ndelay  in lodging the FIR and even if the mother had  become
\nunwell after hearing the news of the daughter’s death  other
\nadult members of the family could have lodged the  complaint
\nwith  the police.  It appears to us that the High Court\t has
\nfailed to note that the elder brother of the deceased had in
\nfact  made a written complaint on the very same day  to\t the
\npolice but the same was not treated as FIR by the police and
\nhe  also made a statement before the police on the next\t day
\nwherein\t the allegations of cruelty meted out to his  sister
\nwere  clearly  indicated.  So far as the  absence  of  dying
\ndeclaration  and  suicidal  note is concerned,\twe  fail  to
\nappreciate how there would be a dying declaration when it is
\nnobody’s  case\tthat Usha was alive so as to  make  a  dying
\ndeclaration.   The absence of suicidal note does not  appear
\nto  us an important factor in deciding the case.  It  is  in
\nevidence in the case that the deceased had been\t complaining
\nabout  the  cruel  treatment meted out to  her.\t  There\t are
\nclinching  evidences  to support the prosecution  case\tthat
\nUsha  had been subjected to mental and physical torture\t and
\nshe remained unhappy in the house of in-laws, and such\tacts
\nof  cruelty, in ordinary course, were likely to disturb\t the
\nmental\tframe of the deceased and cause sufficient  impulses
\nto  commit  suicide.  Coming to the question of\t absence  of
\nexchange  of  letters between Usha and the  members  of\t her
\nparental  family during the subsistence of marriage, we\t may
\nindicate  that\tbarring\t the parents other  members  of\t the
\nfamily\twere  permanent\t residents of  Calcutta\t itself\t and
\nalthough  the  mother used to leave Calcutta at\t times,\t she
\noften  used to come to Calcutta and it is the positive\tcase
\nof  the\t mother and also the elder brother of  the  deceased
\nthat  on a number of occasions when Usha had- come to  their
\nhouse in Calcutta from the house of her in-laws, she had met
\nthe  mother and the other members of the family.   Hence  it
\nshould\tnot be held that exchange of letters was  reasonably
\nexpected.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Coming  to the question of absence of complaint  either
\nby the father or by the father-in-law of the victim, we have
\nfailed to appreciate what was meant by the learned Judges of
\nthe  High  Court  by the absence of complaint  made  by\t the
\nfather-in-law of the victim.  So far as the complaint by the
\nfather\tis  concerned, it may be indicated that\t it  is\t the
\nevidence  of  the mother that she had spoken  to  accused  2
\nnamely the mother-in-law about the maltreatment meted out to
\nher daughter and she also implored before the  mother-in-law
\nthat  the daughter should not be subjected to any abuses  or
\nhumiliations.  It is
\n88<\/span>
\nthe prosecution case that mother-in-law abused the daughter-
\nin-law\tby saying that she was a woman of evil luck and\t had
\nbrought\t misfortune  to the family.  It is  therefore  quite
\nnatural that the mother of the deceased had made  complaints
\nto her mother-in-law and had requested her not to abuse\t and
\nhumiliate her daughter.\t Hence, the question of complaint by
\nthe  father was neither expected nor necessary.\t Corning  to
\nthe finding made by the High Court that there is no evidence
\nregarding the injuries received by Usha or the\tmaltreatment
\nmade  to  her, it may be indicated that\t the  mother,  elder
\nbrother,  sister  and other relations of the  deceased\thave
\ndeposed\t about the maltreatment and physical assault of\t the
\ndeceased.   The doctor conducting the postmortem  has  noted
\nsome  injuries which were ante-mortem on the person  of\t the
\ndeceased.  Whether such evidences are to be accepted or\t not
\nand whether the injuries, ante-mortem in nature found on the
\nperson of the deceased can be explained or not are different
\nconsiderations but it will not be correct to hold that there
\nis no evidence about maltreatment given to Usha or there  is
\nabsence of any evidence of injuries sustained by her  before
\ndeath.\n<\/p>\n
14.Coming  to  the finding that no specific  date  has\tbeen
\ngiven when the deceased had allegedly told her mother  about
\nthe demand of dowry and maltreatment to the deceased, it may
\nbe  indicated that although exact date has not\tbeen  given,
\nthere  is  positive  evidence of the mother  and  the  elder
\nbrother of the deceased that when after about a month of the
\nmarriage, Usha came to her parental house, she had  narrated
\nabout  cruelty\tand mental torture suffered by\ther  in\t the
\nhouse  of  the accused.\t She  specifically  complained\tthat
\nwithin\ta few days after her marriage the  father-in-law  of
\naccused 2 had died and in view of such death, she was abused
\nand treated with cruelty by accused 2. Thereafter, on  other
\noccasions also whenever she had come to the parental  house,
\nshe had talked about such maltreatment.\t Usha was alive only
\nfor  about 10 months after marriage and it is nobody’s\tcase
\nthat the deceased complained about the maltreatment given in
\nremote past or only on specific occasions so that exact date
\nwas required to be mentioned.  Coming to the finding of\t the
\nHigh  Court  that  the adult members of the  family  of\t the
\ndeceased consisting of four brothers, sisters and  brothers-
\nin-law\tand the father were residents of Calcutta  but\tUsha
\nhad  not  complained anything to them and  non-complaint  to
\nsuch  close relations was not in conformity with  the  human
\nconduct,  we  may indicate that there is no basis  for\tsuch
\nfinding\t and  such  finding is\tcontrary  to  the  evidences
\nadduced\t in the case.  We have already pointed out that\t the
\ndeceased  had complained to the mother and other members  of
\nthe  family about the, maltreatment and the members  of\t the
\nfamily\thave deposed to that effect.  The  prosecution\tcase
\nwas  not properly investigated by the police for  which\t the
\nlearned\t Sessions Judge has rightly commented on the  lapses
\non the part of the investigating officer, Shri Bimal Chandra
\nBiswas,\t Sub-Inspector\tof  Police.   As  the  investigating
\nofficer\t failed and neglected to examine the members of\t the
\nfamily\tof  the\t deceased  at an  early\t date,\tthe  learned
\nSessions   Judge,   in\t fairness,  has\t  not\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration  the evidences of the sister and\tother  close
\nrelations  of  the  deceased and has mainly  relied  on\t the
\nevidence of the mother in basing his
\n89<\/span>
\nfinding.   Even\t if  it\t is  held  that\t the  deceased\t had
\ncomplained  to\ther mother only about  the  cruel  treatment
\nmeted  out to her, we think that for a newly married  woman,
\nher  misfortune in the house of in-laws was not expected  to
\nbe made public and confiding in the mother was only natural.
\nComing\tto  the\t observation  of the  High  Court  that\t the
\nneighbours or the tenants have not been examined, it appears
\nto  us that in the facts of the case, no  adverse  inference
\ncan be drawn for such non-examination.\tThe abuse and insult
\nhurled on the daughter-in-law usually are not expected to be
\nmade  public  so that the neighbours may have  occasions  to
\ncriticise the improper conduct of the accused and hold\tthem
\nwith disrespect and contempt.  The High Court has  expressed
\ndoubts about the genuineness of the case of physical torture
\nand  abuses  made by the husband and the  deceased  for\t the
\nabsence of any independent evidence given by the  neighbours
\nand  cotenants\tabout such physical assault  or\t the  abuses
\nhurled\ton the wife by the accused.  We have indicated\tthat
\nordinarily  it is not expected that physical torture or\t the
\nabuses hurled on the wife by the husband and the  mother-in-
\nlaw  should  be made in such a way as to be noticed  by\t the
\ntenants\t living in the adjoining portions of the house.\t  It
\nis  also not the case of the prosecution that  the  deceased
\nwas  physically assaulted so violently that  the  neighbours
\ncame  to know about such assault.  It is also not  the\tcase
\nthat abuses used to be hurled loudly so that the tenants had
\noccasions  to hear them.  It was therefore not necessary  to
\nexamine neighbour or tenants to prove the prosecution  case.
\nIn the instant case, the evidence about physical and  mental
\ntorture\t of  the deceased has come from\t the  mother,  elder
\nbrother\t and  other close relations.   Such  depositions  by
\nclose relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of
\nthe  accused, need not be discarded simply on the  score  of
\nthe   absence  of  corroboration  by  independent   witness.
\nWhether\t the  evidence of interested witness  is  worthy  of
\ncredence  is to be judged in the special facts of the  case.
\nIn  our\t view,\tthe  acts of cruelty  by  the  accused\twere
\nexpected  to  be  known by the\tvery  close  relations\tlike
\nmother,\t brother, sister, etc.\tThe evidence of\t the  mother
\nhas been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as worthy of
\ncredence  and  we  do  not think that  the  same  should  be
\ndiscarded, in the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
15.  We\t are  not  oblivious that in a\tcriminal  trial\t the
\ndegree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil
\nproceedings.  In a criminal trial however intriguing may  be
\nfacts  and  circumstances  of the  case,  the  charges\tmade
\nagainst\t the  accused must be proved beyond  all  reasonable
\ndoubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the  realm
\nof  surmises  and  conjectures.\t The  requirement  of  proof
\nbeyond\treasonable doubt does not stand altered\t even  after
\nthe  introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A  of
\nIndian Evidence Act.  Although, the court’s conscience\tmust
\nbe satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when  there
\nare reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in
\nrespect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in\tmind
\nthat  there is no absolute standard for proof in a  criminal
\ntrial and the question whether the charges made against\t the
\naccused\t have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts\tmust
\ndepend upon the facts and
\n90<\/span>
\ncircumstances  of the case and the quality of the  evidences
\nadduced\t in  the case and the materials\t placed\t on  record.
\nLord Denning in Bater v. Bater2 has observed that the  doubt
\nmust be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be
\na  standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for  coming
\nto a conclusion considering the particular subject-matter.\n<\/p>\n
16.  In\t  Gurbachan  Singh  v.\tSatpal\tSingh’\tMr   Justice
\nSabyasachi Mukharji<\/a> (as\t he  then  was)\t has  very   rightly
\nindicated that the conscience of the court   can  never\t  be
\nbound  by  any rule but that is coming itself  dictates\t the
\nconsciousness\tand  prudent  exercise\tof   the   judgment.
\nReasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which  would
\npermit\ta reasonable and just man to come to  a\t conclusion.
\nReasonableness\tof the doubt must be commensurate  with\t the
\nnature\tof  the\t offence to  be\t investigated.\t Exaggerated
\ndevotion  to the rule of benefit of doubt must\tnot  nurture
\nfanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby  destroy
\nsocial defence.\t Justice cannot be made sterile on the\tplea
\nthat  it is better to let hundred guilty escape than  punish
\nan  innocent.  Letting guilty escape is not  doing  justice,
\naccording to law. (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
17.  In\t the  instant case, the learned Sessions  Judge\t has
\ncome  to the finding that the charges levelled\tagainst\t the
\naccused\t have  been  proved  by\t indicating  cogent  reasons
\ntherefore.   We\t have  already indicated  that\tthe  learned
\nJudges\tof  the High Court have entertained  a\tgrave  doubt
\nabout  the  correctness\t of the prosecution  story  for\t the
\ncircumstances  indicated  hereinbefore.\t  We  have  analysed
\nthose circumstances and in our view the said grounds do\t not
\nstand  scrutiny\t and  they are against\tthe  weight  of\t the
\nevidence.   We\tmay  add  here\tthat  the  Court  should  be
\nextremely  careful in assessing the facts and  circumstances
\nof  each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for\t the
\npurpose\t of  finding whether the cruelty meted out  to\tthe.
\nvictim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing
\nsuicide.   If  it  transpires to the  Court  that  a  victim
\ncommitting suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
\ndiscord and differences in domestic life quite common to the
\nsociety\t to  which the victim belonged and  such  petulance,
\ndiscord\t and  differences  were not  expected  to  induce  a
\nsimilarly  circumstanced  individual in a given\t society  to
\ncommit\tsuicide, the conscience of the Court should  not  be
\nsatisfied  for basing a finding that the accused charged  of
\nabetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.\t But
\nin  the\t facts and circumstances of the case,  there  is  no
\nmaterial   worthy  of  credence\t to  hold  that\t  Usha\t was
\nhypersensitive and that for other reasons and not on account
\nof  cruelty  she  had lost normal frame of  mind  and  being
\novercome  by unusual psychic imbalance, decided to  end\t her
\nlife  by  committing suicide.  The evidence adduced  in\t the
\ncase  has  clearly established that Usha  was  subjected  to
\nabuses,\t humiliation  and  mental  torture  from  the\tvery
\nbeginning of her married life.\tWithin a few days after\t the
\nmarriage when a newly married bride would reasonably  expect
\nlove and affection from the in-laws, she was
\n2 (1950) 2 All ER 458, 459: 66 TLR (Pt. 2) 589
\n3 (1990) 1 SCC 445 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 151 : AIR 1990 SC 209
\n91<\/span>
\nabused\tby the mother-in-law, accused 2 by saying  that\t the
\ndeceased  was a woman of evil luck only because\t an  elderly
\nmember in the family had died after her marriage.  According
\nto the evidence given by the mother of the deceased, accused
\n2 even suggested that being a woman of evil luck  (alakshmi)
\nthe  deceased, should not live and end her life.  When\tUsha
\nconceived  for\tthe  first time she had\t the  misfortune  of
\nabortion.    When  the\tunfortunate  daughter-in-law   would
\nreasonably expect sympathy and consolation from the  mother-
\nin-law, the evidence in this case is that the  mother-in-law
\nabused the deceased in the hospital by telling that she\t was
\na  woman of evil luck.\tThe evidence in the case reveals  an
\nact  of extreme form of cruelty by telling  the\t unfortunate
\nmother that she was vile enough to swallow her own baby\t and
\nshe  should commit suicide.  There is also evidence  in\t the
\ncase that the husband used to come home drunk and abuse\t her
\nand  also  used\t to assault her on  occasions.\t The  bridal
\npresents  brought by her were branded as goods\tof  inferior
\nquality and she was asked to take the said articles back  to
\nher  parental home.  Such acts, to say the least, were\tvery
\nunkind and a newly married woman is bound to suffer a  great
\nmental\tpain and humiliation.  Even if we do not  take\tinto
\nconsideration  the demand for further dowry gifts since\t the
\ncase  of such demand had not been indicated in\tthe  earlier
\nstatement made by the mother which was treated as FIR, there
\nis no manner of doubt that the evidence of the mother  which
\nhas  been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and in\t our
\nview  there  is\t no  reason to\tdiscard\t the  same,  clearly
\nestablishes that the deceased had been subjected to physical
\nand  mental torture all throughout.  It is only\t unfortunate
\nthat  accused 1, the husband, instead of giving\t her  solace
\nagainst the humiliation and abuses hurled by the  mother-in-
\nlaw,  either kept silent or expressed his inability to\tgive
\ngood counselling to the mother and to protest against act of
\nmental\ttorture and humiliation.  On the contrary,  he\talso
\ntreated\t the  wife with cruelty by telling her to  take\t the
\nbridal\tgifts  back  to\t her  parental\thome  and  also\t  by
\nphysically  assaulting\ther.  Such acts, in our\t view,\twere
\nquite  likely  to destroy the normal frame of  mind  of\t the
\ndeceased  and to drive her to frustration and  mental  agony
\nand   to  end  her  life  by  committing   suicide.    Under
\nexplanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC, “cruelty” means  “any
\nwilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive
\nthe  woman  to commit suicide or to cause  grave  injury  or
\ndanger to life, limb or health (whether mental or  physical)
\nof the woman”.\n<\/p>\n
18.  In\t the  aforesaid\t circumstances,\t the  offence  under
\nSection\t 498-A IPC is clearly established against  both\t the
\naccused.   We therefore allow the appeal in part by  setting
\naside  the order of acquittal under Section 498-A  IPC.\t  We
\nconvict both the accused namely Orilal Jaiswal and  Gujarati
\nDebi  under  Section 498-A IPC but considering\tthe  age  of
\naccused\t 2,  Gujarati  Debi, we impose sentence\t on  her  to
\nsuffer\trigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine  of  Rs
\n2000  in  default to suffer further  imprisonment  for\tfour
\nmonths.\t The accused 1 Orilal Jaiswal is sentenced to suffer
\nrigorous  imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs 2000  in
\ndefault\t to  suffer further rigorous  imprisonment  of\tfour
\nmonths under Section 498-A IPC.\t Although there are
\n92<\/span>
\nmaterials  on record to indicate that both the accused\twere
\nalso  guilty  under Section 306 IPC but we are\tinclined  to
\ngive  them  benefit  of doubt so far  as  the  charge  under
\nSection\t 306 IPC is concerned and they are acquitted of\t the
\nsaid charge. The impungned judgment of the High Court stands
\naltered to the above extent.\n<\/p>\n
99<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 1418, 1994 SCC (1) 73 Author: G Ray Bench: Ray, G.N. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF W.B. Vs. RESPONDENT: ORILAL JAISWAL DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/09\/1993 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION: 1994 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-09T03:59:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"43 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-09T03:59:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\"},\"wordCount\":8601,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\",\"name\":\"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-09T03:59:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-09T03:59:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"43 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993","datePublished":"1993-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-09T03:59:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993"},"wordCount":8601,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993","name":"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-09T03:59:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-w-b-vs-orilal-jaiswal-on-23-september-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79026","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}