AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 26 of February, 2013 and 27 February, 2013 passed by the Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, First Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No.02(03)2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 62(09) 2000 convicting the appellants being the
husband and the father-in-law under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.
By the impugned order the appellant husband namely Shyam Mondal and his father namely Inolal Mondal have been sentenced to suffer 3 years
rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.3000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of the IPC and they have also been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and pay a fine of Rs.5000 each, in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The case of the prosecution is that a written complaint was filed by the complainant, being the brother of the deceased victim. In the said complaint
it is alleged that the deceased victim being the younger sister of the complainant was married to one Shyam Monal the appellant no.1 for about 10/11
months. They were residing at the home of her in-laws at Vivekananda Village within the area of Sonarpur P.S. On 30 April, 1998 at about 11.30
P.M. the deceased victim was set on fire in the presence of her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law in a closed room of her in-
laws house after gagging her mouth. The other members being the in-laws silently witnessed and enjoyed the burning of the deceased victim.
Thereafter, some neighbours rushed to the spot to douse the flames and took the victim to the hospital in a burnt condition.
At around 1 A.M., the deceased victim was admitted to M.R. Bangur Hospital. The victim after struggling with her life with burn injuries ultimately
expired at 11 A.M. The complainant came to learn about the details of this grotesque incident from the neighbours and other local residents. It is also
alleged in the complaint that the neighbours saw the victim in a burnt condition while her mouth was gagged and no clothes on her body. It is further
alleged in the complaint that the entire incident was conducted in a pre-planned and cold-blooded manner. It is also alleged in the complaint that the in-
laws had tortured the deceased victim for dowry.
Upon receipt of the complaint, the police investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons. The case was committed
to the Court of Sessions and thereafter transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court at Alipore. Thereafter, charges were framed under
Sections 302/304B, 498A of the IPC. During the course of the trial, the accused no.3 being the mother-in-law had expired. All the accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 11 (eleven) witnesses and certain documents were exhibited marked Exhibits 1 to 5. The
defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. In the examination, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., after the recording
of the examination was over the accused persons reiterated that they had been falsely implicated. In conclusion of the trial, the Trial Judge by a
judgment and order dated 26 February, 2013 and 27 February, 2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant husband being the appellant no.1 and the
father-in-law being the appellant no.2 as morefully stated hereinabove.
Hence the present appeal.
Mr Moinak Bakshi appearing for the appellants strenuously argued that in convicting the appellants the Trial Court committed errors both in law and
on the facts. He contended that there was hostility between the complainant and the in-laws of the deceased victim since she had eloped and got
married. He further contended that the complainant was not on visiting terms with his sister as there was a complete breakdown in the relationship
between the complainant and the in-laws. He contended that there was a perfunctory investigation conducted by the police which affected the case of
the appellants. No sketch map was prepared by the investigating officer leaving the entire place of occurrence to the imagination. He contended that
the FIR implicates the sister-in-law as well, however, she was not proceeded with. He further contended that the dying declaration was a vague and
omnibus implication devoid of specific and was insufficient to award a conviction. He also contended that the evidence of the witnesses does not
clearly indicate as to who arrived at the place of occurrence to find the door ajar. He also urged that the prosecution case was dented by non-
examination of material witnesses.
On the other hand, Ms. Anusua Sinha vehemently argued that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied on by
the Trial Court clearly established the guilt of the appellants and supported the order of conviction which has been passed against them. She further
argued that the deceased victim had suffered a homicidal death. This would be borne out from the post-mortem report of Dr P.B. Das (PW-10). The
burn injuries suffered by the deceased victim was sufficient to cause her death. She further contended that this was a gruesome murder conducted in
an abominable manner. She placed reliance on the fact that the murder was committed whilst the appellant no.1 husband was in the same room. She
placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 7 and 8 who are all neighbours. She meticulously took us through each of the circumstances which point
to the irresistible conclusion the appellant was guilty of offences committed.
Before addressing the rival contentions of the parties I think it is essential to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses in this proceeding. PW-1
(Prativa Nath) is a neighbour. She deposed that she had not seen the deceased victim. She deposed that she came to know that one Bula Mondal
being the deceased victim was admitted to the hospital in a burnt condition. She is the leader of a Women Cell in the locality and held a meeting with
the other female members of the locality. She held a meeting in the locality when she had come to learn that Bula Mondal had already expired. She
thereafter had gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased victim but had found around 100 persons who had already assembled there with lathis,
sticks and bamboo sticks planning to assault the in-laws. She resisted those persons and told them not to take law in their hands. She had gone to the
home of the in-laws and had spoken to the in-laws after the incident. She had then handed over the accused persons to the police. In cross-
examination, this witness deposed that she knew the locality where the matrimonial home of the deceased victim was situated. She further deposed
that she could describe the locality where the matrimonial home is located and she also mentioned that she knew persons in that locality. She admitted
that she had no personal knowledge about the incident. She deposed that she had made no complaint before the police.
PW-2 (Debabrata Biswas) is the elder brother of the deceased victim and the defacto complainant in this case. He deposed that the deceased victim
was his sister. He further deposed that the marriage of his sister was solemnised with Shyam Mondal according to Hindu rites and customs on 1 of
May, 1998. He deposed that after marriage his sister was living with her husband in a rented house, thereafter, she shifted to her own house. He
deposed that after the marriage the relationship between his sister and her husband was not good. He deposed that his sister had mentioned to him
that the appellant no.1 husband would threaten her. He had come to learn of the incident from the local people of Sonarpur who had told him that his
sister had died due to burn injuries caused by the accused persons. Upon hearing the same he rushed to the Bangur Hospital. He was unable to
identify his sister but the nurse told him that the burnt lady was his sister. He had filed the complaint with the appropriate police station. He identified
his signature in the complaint. In cross-examination, he deposed that the marriage of his sister was not an arranged marriage but one out of love. He
deposed that his sister did not take their consent at the time of the marriage and fled away with the appellant no.1. This was the primary reason for
him not to frequently visit the matrimonial home of his deceased sister. He deposed that he had not consented to the marriage. He deposed that he had
no personal knowledge regarding the occurrence of the incident. He deposed that the local people of Sonarpur had admitted his sister and he had not
admitted her. He had lodged a complaint with the concerned police station. In respect of the previous threats made out to his sister, he had filed a
general diary. She deposed that at the time he visited the hospital the appellant no.1 husband was present.
PW-3 (Ashok Ghosh), is a relation of the deceased victim. He deposed that he knew both Debabrata Biswas and the deceased victim. He deposed
that he did not know much about the marital relationship of the deceased victim and her husband. He had visited the Bangur Hospital on the day of the
incident. He thereafter, had gone to the Sonarpur police station along with Debabrata Biswas. He had transcribed the written complaint as per the
dictation of Debabrata Biswas. He had put his signature on the written complaint. He identified that the complainant put his LTI in his presence. He
deposed that the contents of the written complaint were read over and explained to Debabrata. He identified the written complaint which was marked
Exhibit-1. He identified the accused persons standing in the dock. In cross-examination, he reiterated that he did not know much about the marital
relationship between the deceased victim and her husband.
PW-4 (Abhijit Gupta), is a neighbour. He deposed that he knew the deceased victim as she was his neighbour. He deposed that he knew that the
deceased victim had died by catching fire. He was not present when the deceased victim had caught fire but thereafter following the local people he
had gone to the house of the deceased victim and found the deceased victim was lying on the floor and her hands tied with a piece of cloth. He had
taken water and poured it over the deceased victim. He removed the piece of cloth from her hands and he heard the deceased victim screaming “I
want to live, save meâ€. He arranged some banana leaves and some eggs for the comfort of the deceased victim. He had knocked off the door of the
room where the parents-in-law of the deceased victim were staying and also found the appellant no.1 husband of the deceased victim staying in the
same room where the deceased victim had been lying. He arranged for the hospitalisation of the deceased victim. He further deposed that the in-laws
of the deceased victim and her husband had accompanied them to the hospital. He thereafter, came to learn that at 2/2.30 PM on the following day
the deceased victim had died between 11.00 A.M. to 11.30 AM. He identified his signature to the seizure list. He also identified the accused persons.
In cross-examination, he deposed that he was an inhabitant of the adjoining locality. According to him, it would only take two minutes to reach the
locality of the deceased victim. He therefore deposed at the relevant point of time of occurrence he had heard about the fire and saw the locals
running towards the deceased victim’s house. He further deposed he did not pour water on the deceased victim when she was on fire. He
identified the home of the deceased victim where he had entered on the date of the incident. He had found the hands and legs of the deceased victim
in a burnt condition. He did not remove the rope from the hands of the deceased victim. He, however, saw others who did it. He further deposed he
did not accompany the deceased victim to the hospital. He deposed that he found that the deceased victim’s husband in the same room where the
deceased victim was burnt. He deposed that the parents in-law of the deceased victim were in the adjoining room.
PW-5 (Santosh Kumar Das) is a neighbour. He deposed that on the date of the incident he found some villagers running towards the home of the
deceased victim, he had followed them and entered the home of the deceased victim. Upon entering the home, he found the deceased victim lying on
the floor in a burnt condition and the husband of the deceased victim sleeping on the cot of the same room. He also deposed that one part of the
mosquito net was in a burnt condition, the floor was muddy, the hands and legs were tied by rope, one piece of cloth was hanging from the chin of
mouth. Moreover, there was a janata stove, kerosene bottle in the said room. The deceased victim was shouting “jale jacchi jale jacchi†(I am
burning). He also stated that the deceased victim said that her mother-in-law did not allow her to live and also stated to remove her in the hospital as
she wanted to live. The witness thereafter deposed that he and others unfreed the hands and legs and knocked at the husband of the deceased victim
who was sleeping in the same room. He also deposed that he knocked at the door where the in-laws of the deceased victim were sleeping.
Thereafter, he arranged some items like a tray of egg and banana leaves to ease the pain of the deceased victim. This witness also arranged for a
vehicle to take the deceased victim to a hospital. This witness also took the deceased victim to the Bangur hospital. He identified his signature in the
seizure list. In cross-examination, he deposed that at the relevant point of time he was a few minutes away from the home of the deceased victim. He
deposed that at that point of time he was with one Dilip Bose, Sasadhar Koley and Avijit Gupta discussing some accounts in a place closed by the
home of the deceased victim. On arrival of the spot, he found 2 to 5 persons. This witness did not recollect what he told the police.
PW-6 (Smt. Durga Mondal) is a relative. She deposed that the deceased victim was the wife of his brother-in-law. She did not know the cause of
death. She knew the accused persons. In cross-examination, she deposed that the relationship between the deceased victim and her husband was
good.
PW-7 (Sasadhar Kolay) is a local resident. He knew the entire family of the deceased victim. He deposed that on 30 April, 1998 he found some
people in the middle of the night making a huge noise in the locality. The noise was coming from the home of the deceased victim. He had visited the
matrimonial home and found that the hands and legs of the deceased victim were tied by a rope and one red lace was hanging from her mouth. He
heard the deceased victim say “save me, save meâ€. He also heard the deceased victim was saying “these people will not allow me to liveâ€.
Upon entering the home he found the husband of the deceased victim lying on one bed in the same room. The mosquito net was half burnt. He was
present at the place of occurrence with four other persons namely Santosh Das, Avijit Gupta Dilip Bose and himself. He did not accompany the
deceased victim to the hospital. He had observed in the room that there were a stove and some food lying in the utensils. He was interrogated by the
police on the next day. In cross-examination, he deposed that he was not aware of the marital relationship between the deceased victim and her
husband. He had entered the matrimonial house of the deceased victim on the night of the incident. He deposed that he saw one Pratibha Nath. He
could not recollect what he had told the police. On the night of the incident, he had requested a local doctor to come but the doctor had refused.
PW-8 (Dilip Bose) is a neighbour. His house is situated 150 feet from the house of the deceased victim. He deposed that the incident took place on 30
April, 1998 between 12 to 12.30 AM at night. He heard a loud voice and many people were running towards the deceased victim’s home. Along
with three others, he had therefore observed that the legs and hands of the deceased victim tied with a rope and a cloth was coming out of her mouth.
He found the husband of the deceased victim lying in a cot in the same room. Nobody was present in the same room. He identified the accused
persons. He deposed that the deceased victim was taken to the hospital where she succumbed to her injuries. In cross-examination, he deposed he
was not on talking terms with the husband of the deceased victim. He deposed that one Santosh Das, Indulal and Shyam had taken the deceased
victim to the hospital.
PW-9 (Swarup Kumar Paul) is an Administrative Officer of K.M.D. On the date of the incident, he was the Duty Magistrate and the Deputy
Collector of South 24 Parganas. At the relevant point of time, he had conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased victim. He identified his
report which has been signed by him and is marked Exhibit-3. He conducted the raid in his official capacity.
PW-10 (Dr. P.B. Das). He conducted the post-mortem examination in his capacity as A.C.M.O.H (Medico-Legal). He found extensive burn injuries
covering the entire body of the deceased victim. In his opinion, the death was conducted due to the effect of extensive burn injuries as stated in the
post-mortem report which was marked as Exhibit-4. According to him, the burn injuries were sufficient to cause her death.
PW-11 (Sk. Abdul Khabir) he was S.I. of Sonarpur Police Station at the relevant point of time. On 30 April, 1998, he conducted the investigation on
the complaint filed by Debabrata Biswas. He identified the complaint which was submitted by Debabrata Biswas to the then duty officer who handed
over the investigation to the Officer-in-Charge. He had identified the formal FIR which was drawn on the basis of the written complaint. He had
conducted the investigation and had arrested the three accused persons. He identified the accused persons. He identified the seizure list which was
signed by him. He had collected the post-mortem report and submitted the charge sheet. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not tried to
ascertain the date of marriage. He did not draw any sketch map. He did not seize any mosquito net nor any General Diary entry either from
Narkeldanga Police Station or Sonarpur Police Station.
The relevant provisions of law which arise for consideration in this case are extracted hereunder:
S.302. Punishment for murder. â€" Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
S.498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. â€" Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty†means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
It is well settled that in order to establish the offence under Section 498A of the IPC the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the husband or his relative has subjected the victim to cruelty. This has been the ingredient to commit the accused persons under Section 498A. State
of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh and Others (1991) 3 SCC 1.
In the light of the medical evidence and the evidence of the witnesses, it is an unassailable and indisputable fact that the deceased victim had died
out of the burn injuries. There is otherwise sufficient, credible oral evidence corroborated by the witnesses primarily the witnesses 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 that
the deceased victim was found in a burnt condition on the floor of the accused person. The appellant no.1 husband was admittedly in the same room
on a cot and the parents-in-law were in an adjacent room. All the witnesses who had been to the place of occurrence categorically deposed that the
hands and legs of the deceased victim were tied with a rope and they opened the rope. All the accused persons were at home at the time of the
incident.
I am of the view that the solitary evidence of the deceased victim being found with her hands and legs tied and a cloth hanging from her mouth per
se proves the heinous, spine-chilling and horrifying manner in which the deceased victim was murdered. Considering the nature of the injury as it
appears from the post-mortem report and the evidence of the witnesses who have all corroborated each other, I am of the view that the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that this was not a case of suicide but one of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. There is no explanation from
the appellant no.1 who was in the same room how the incident occurred. I am of the view that in the light of the aforesaid facts it was incumbent on
the appellant no.1 husband to explain how the deceased victim suffered homicidal death. No explanation was given by the appellant no.1 husband.
Admittedly, the appellant no.1 husband was lying on a cot in the very same room where the incident occurred. Apart from vague surmises and
conjectures, no evidence was led by the appellant no.1 husband in his defence. Taking into account the evidence on record coupled with the failure on
the part of the appellant no.1 husband as to how his wife who was sleeping with him was murdered I find that the Trial Court was fully justified in the
facts and circumstances of the case in convicting the appellant no.1 husband of the offences under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC.
It is evident that the offence under Section 302 was committed in a premeditated manner. The circumstantial evidence in the instant case
particularly the tying of the hands and legs of the deceased victim the piece of cloth hanging from the deceased victim’s mouth coupled with the
fact that the appellant no.1 husband was found sleeping in the cot in the very same room as the deceased victim was set on fire leaves no room for
doubt that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I find no force in the argument of the appellant-husband that the
complaint was triggered because of animosity between the family of the accused persons and the complainant. I also find no substance in the
argument that there were any lapses in the manner in which the investigation was conducted. There is simply no evidence to substantiate either of
these defences.
Moreover, the medical evidence supports the prosecution case as to the nature of the death suffered by the deceased victim. The investigation had
been conducted in an honest, sincere and dispassionate manner. The evidence of the witnesses corroborates the case of the prosecution which was
reliable and formidable. The evidence of the witnesses was clear, cogent and convincing. There is no contradiction or omission in the case of the
prosecution is concerned insofar as the charges of Section 302 and Section 498A are concerned as against the appellant no.1 husband. I am of the
view that the circumstances from which the conclusions have been drawn are fully proved and are conclusive and therefore uphold the order of the
Trial Court as far as the appellant no.1 husband is concerned.
In so far as, the father-in-law of the deceased victim is concerned there is no evidence to justify that he had any role to play in committing any of
the offences either under Section 498A or under Section 302 of the IPC. He was not in the room where the victim had died and no evidence was
forthcoming that he had participated in the murder of the victim. The prosecution proceeded in a mechanical manner insofar the father-in-law is
concerned. I am therefore, inclined to acquit the father-in-law.
A copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court below at once. The certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all necessary formalities.