Smt. Amrita Mukhopadhyay vs Subrata Mukhopadhyay and Others

Raghunath Bhattacharya, J.—Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of acquittal passed by Sri S. Mondal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, 1st Court, Howrah in case No. 1267C/1994 dated 13.04.2006 complainant/appellant Smt. Amrita Mukherjee preferred this appeal against her husband and member of her in-laws family. Shortly put, the petitioner case is that Amrita Mukherjee was married with the accused Subrata Mukherjee on 26.09.1993 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage Smt. Mukherjee was subjected to torture both physically and mentally not only by her husband but also by the other family members of her in-laws house. Prior to marriage complainant father handed over Rs. 18,000/- in cash to the father of Subrata Mukherjee for the purchase of his son''s bike. But the said bike was never purchased. On the other hand the said money was spent for preparation of ''Box Khat'' which was gifted to accused Sugatha, third daughter-in-law of Amrita Mukherjee at the time of marriage. After Boubhat complainant Smt. Amrita Mukherjee was subjected to torture both physically and mentally not only by her husband but also by her parents-in-law, second, third and youngest sister-in-law for alleged inferior quality articles/gifts given by the father of the complainant. Admittedly the husband of the complainant was a lawyer by profession and he used to practice at Alipore Court and so many female personnel came to the husband of the complainant for legal advice. Complainant apprehended some relation between female clients with her husband and reported the matter to the member of her in-laws house but they paid no attention to that. Subsequently the domestic hands were released one by one and as a result the female member of her in-laws house directed the complainant for doing all sorts of jobs including cooking, cleaning etc. Subsequently complainant''s father on the request of complainants husband arranged a rented accommodation for complainant and her husband but complainant husband never stayed there with the complainant. Moreover, during that period the torture both physically and mentally were increasing and all the female members of the complainant''s in-laws house are taking active part in the said torture as a result finding no other alternative complainant filed this case before the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Hence the prosecution case.

After examination of the complainant and other witnesses at S.A. the summon was issued and in pursuance to that summon all the accused persons appear before the Court below and they are released on bail.

The defence case as it appears from the trend of the cross-examination of the complainant witnesses before and after charge and answer given by the accused person to their respective examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is that of absolute innocence.

In this case from the side of the complainant only four witnesses are examined namely complainant herself Smt. Amrita Mukherjee, her father Ajit Chatterjee, P.W. 3 petitioner''s brother Amit Chatterjee and S.I. of police Bimal Behari Dey as P.W. 4. No witness was forthcoming from the side of the accused person.

Perused the ocular version of complainant Smt. Amrita Mukherjee. She was examined as S/A and thereafter as evidence before charge and lastly cross-examination after charge. During the all three times she has stated about her miseries, torture both physically and mentally in her in-laws house. Even she was stated that she has been compelled to abortion and her husband left her mother-in-laws house. She was further stated that her husband has girl friend and this girl friend used to come to her in-laws on and often. Assuming but not admitting all of those versions are true then it is needless to mention that she was subjected to torture both physically and mentally. Even occasionally her husband placed the burning ends of cigarette and biri on her body which is really humiliating. She was stated that the member of her in-laws house used to ask her to commit suicide. Her mother-in-law used to torture her physically and mentally and even used filthy languages not only to her but addressing to her parents. Her sister-in-laws namely Subha, Sujata and Sujaya also insulted her saying mad, unfit (baje meyer) etc. She has further stated that day by day the degree of torture was increased and even she was physically assaulted not only by her husband but also by her mother-in-law. It is needless to mention that Smt. Mukherjee namely Amrita Mukherjee has stated everything regarding torture caused upon her by the member of her in-laws house from the next date of boubhat till the date she left her husband house. It is curious enough to note that during that period not only she got pregnant but occasionally her husband used to visit her own house and both of them frequently cohabit with each other. Moreover, it was the statement of Amrita Mukherjee that she narrated the story of torture not only to her parents but also to her brother, mother and etc. She also has stated that her father give a fat cheque to her father-in-law for purchase of a bike for her husband.

So far the evidence of P.W. 1 that Amrita Mukherjee was concerned. I find that her statement is to some extent self-contradictory. She stated in her cross-examination after charge that a meeting was held in presence of local panchayat but she could not recollect how many times the meetings were held. She was not taken part in the said meeting. She did not know as a result it is not possible for her to state what her father are stated in the said meeting. Even though torture lasted for nearly about a year. Neither she lodged a complaint to local P.S. nor she went to the local people stating inter alia that how the torture was caused upon her even the panchayat was there she has not venture to go to the panchayat to addresses her grievances. I failed to understand what prompted her to not to take recourse of law during this period. Even she lodged a complaint case before the Learned S.D.J.M. When there is no explanation why she has not gone to the local P.S. and lodged a complaint against the member of her in-laws house. In this case it was stated by P.W. 1 that his mother was fit, his brother was alive but neither of them was produced to depose in this case. Not an independent witness was produced from the side of the P.W. 1 to depose in favour of her. Only P.W. 1 Amrita Mukherjee, her father, her brother and S.I. who conducted the search in the house of the accused person has deposed in this case. This is in a nutshell the evidence of P.W. 1.

The complainant Smt. Mukhejee made some allegations against not only on her husband but also the member of her husband''s family. Yet there is no cogent document to substantiate the allegation made by Mrs. Mukherjee against her husband and the family member of her husband. It was the allegation of Mrs. Mukherjee that almost every night her husband directed to take poison and to commit suicide. On most of the occasion he pressed burning butts of biris on the body of the complainant but inspite of that it is really surprising that she never went to local police station, Panchayat or any organization or even treated by the doctor for such treatment by her husband. There is no document to show why complainant''s mother and other family members are not cited as witness in this case. Nowadays several avenues were open to the married woman against the alleged torture by the husband or family members of the husband but in the instant case complainant has never take any such steps to that regard only he lodged a petition of complaint before the Court.

P.W. 2 Ajit Chatterjee, happens to be the father of the complainant. P.W. 2 has good acquaintance as revealed from the evidence that one Jamini Mukherjee who happens to be the grand daughter of Subrta, his son-in-law. I failed to understand why no attempt was made on behalf of P.W. 2 for production of grand old man to depose in the instant case. Moreover, it was in his evidence that he paid several amount to his son-in-law by A/c. payee cheque but counterfoil of those cheque has not yet been produced. There was a talk of settlement as I pointed out earlier which is illustrated from December, 1993 to June, 1994. Even Ajit Chatterjee being the father has not lodged a G.D. in the local P.S. in respect of torture of his daughter. Moreover, he has not made any complaint to anywhere about the torture of his daughter. Moreover, there was a demand on part of Mr. Chatterjee that if Subrata receive back his daughter he will not filed the instant case. So, from the evidence of Mr. Chatterjee who happens to be the father of the complainant and father-in-law of principal accused. It is crystal clear that main bone of contention was to receive back Amrita to her in-laws house and if Amrita went back to her in-laws house then most probably this case was not initiated. Moreover, it was the admission of either Amrita''s father or brother that Subrata used to visit Woodland Nursing home everyday during Amrita''s stay at Woodland at the time of termination of pregnancy.

These are the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant. P.W. 1 is the complainant, P.W. 2 and 3 are the near relation of the complainant. Save and except this not a single witnesses are examined. It is more or less accepted that near relation of the complainant must speak in favour of the complainant and there is no independent witnesses to support the allegation made by the complainant. So, I do not find any merit in the instant case.

On behalf of the respondent some judgments not only of the Hon''ble Apex Court placed. It was decided on 2008(1) SCC (Criminal) 507 paragraph 18 that no cogent material has been produced by the prosecution either in the First Information Report, Charge Sheet or in the evidence to substantiate the claim of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation which are the two essential ingredients of an offence u/s 406 of I.P.C. In this instant case also these ingredients are hopelessly lacking so, I have no other alternative but to pass an order to confirm the judgment of acquittal so far the Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned. Learned lawyer for the respondent referred to another decision reported in 2010 (3) supreme Court case (Criminal 473 paragraph 37, 39. As per the said judgment it was decided in the said judgment that ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and to protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean Task in majority of these types of complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relation is also not uncommon. At times even after the conclusion of criminal trial it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with the matrimonial cases. The allegation of harassment of husband''s close relation who do not living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resides would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

In this case also the close relation of the complainant have deposed in this case and not a single witnesses outside the periphery and the relation of the complainant came forward and depose either in favour or against the complainant. So, it is difficult to rely only upon the ocular version of complainant and his brother and father. Thus, I do not find any merit to alter the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Though learned Lawyer for the appellant has referred some decisions yet I do not find any reason to mention those judgments because after going through it I think that all those judgments are not practically applicable in respect of fact and circumstances of the instant case.

The appeal stands dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed.

Let copy of this judgment along with Lower Court Record be sent down to the Court below at once. Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.