State of West Bengal vs Abhijit Mukherjee and Another

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 30th June, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, in Sessions Trial No. 1 (9) of 1992 arising out of Sessions Case No. 15(2) of 1991, acquitting the accused Abhijit Mukherjee and his mother Usha Rani Mukhejee, since deceased, of the charges under sections 498A/304B/306 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that Pinki, a young woman aged about twenty-one years, was given in marriage to the accused Abhijit Mukherjee according to Hindu rites and customs on 20th April, 1987. She committed suicide in her matrimonial house on 1st January, 1988. She had shut herself in her bedroom and hanged by the ceiling fan. The accused Abhijit Mukherjee finding no response banged the door for sometime. Ultimately, the door was broke open. The police was informed and thereafter information was given to the parents of the deceased. All of them rushed to the place of occurrence. A written complaint was instantaneously lodged alleging that "Badhu Hatya" was suspected by the parents. The allegations were against the husband and his mother. They were, after investigation, charged under sections 498A/304B and alternatively u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Twenty-six witnesses were examined. The P.W.2, Sudhindra Nath Chatterjee, is the father of the deceased. The P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee, is the mother of the deceased. The P.W.25 Saranyu Nath Chatterjee, is the brother of the deceased. The P.W.3. Debnath Banerjee, the P.W.4, Jonaki Chatterjee, the P.W.6, Monaja Banerjee, the P.W.8, Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee, the P.W.11, Alokenath Mukhopadhyay, and the P.W.24. Smt. Madhuja Chatterjee, are the other relations of the deceased. The P.W.1, Molla Safiul Alain, is a photographer. The P.W.5, Somnath Bhattacharyya, is the priest who had solemnized the marriage. The P.W.7, Ashoke Jana, is a peon in the employment of the father-in-law of the deceased. It is he who was sent to the police station for the purpose of giving information. The P.W.9, Chaitanya Shaw, is a jeweler. The P.W.10, Dr. Major Indrajit Sinha, had the opportunity to examine the deceased in her matrimonial house after the incident. The P.W.12, Adhip Banerjee, is a constable who prepared the map. The P.W.13, Haridas Maitra, is the officer-in-charge of the Regional Forensic Laboratory at Jalpaiguri. The P.W.15, Subodh Kumar Chowdhury, is a constable who escorted the dead body. P.W.16, Prasanta Kumar Bhattacharyya, carried the objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The P.W.17, Dhruba Marjit, proved the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The P.W.18, Indrajit Kanjilal, is a seizure list witness. The P.W.19, Dr. Narayan Chandra Dutta, held the inquest. The P.W.20, Dr. Dhurjati Sengupta, examined the viscera of the deceased and found no poison therein. The P.W.21. Dilip Kumar Basu, is the autopsy surgeon and the P.W.26, Tapas Kumar Basu, is the investigating officer.

Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned counsel, appearing in support of the appeal, has advanced the following submissions:

(a) The deceased died at her matrimonial house within less than nine months from her marriage;

(b) There were demands for dowry;

(c) The husband and his mother not only were habituated to abusing the deceased but also indulged in assaulting the victim which the incident dated 1st January, 1988. On the day of incident the deceased, as a matter of fact, had telephonically informed her mother that she was not likely to survive and the torture was unbearable. The incident dated 1st January, 1988, as a matter of fact, was culmination of the incident dated 24th December, 1987, when the deceased gave some gold to the P.W.9 for conversion which was not liked by the husband and his mother and that was the bone of contention for which the deceased was assaulted and she informed her mother that she was not likely to survive which has been proved by the evidence of the P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee;

(d) Mr. Dutta Gupta submitted that in these facts, a presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act, should be drawn and the judgment and order under challenge should be reversed and the accused persons should be adequately punished. The mother-in-law of the deceased, however, died during the pendency of this appeal.

Mr. Dastoor, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, has disputed the submissions made by Mr. Dutta Gupta. He has taken us through the evidence which, according to him, nullifies each and every submissions advanced on behalf of the State-appellant.

The first point urged by Mr. Dutta Gupta that the deceased died in her matrimonial house within less than nine months from her marriage is no doubt true.

The second submission urged by Mr. Dutta Gupta is, however, incorrect. The P.W.2, the father of the deceased, was examined on 21st January, 1993. He in his examination-in-chief, deposed as follows:

Mother-in-law of my daughter used to send to me written notes demanding this or that articles but her father in law used to cancel those demands.

Rest of the prosecution witnesses, including the mother and the brother of the deceased, according to us, did not tell the truth. The mother of the deceased during her cross-examination deposed as follows:

I did not tell to my husband that my daughter told me over phone about the humiliation made to her by her husband and mother in law over the alleged inadequacy and cheapness of the dowry. However, I told this to my son.

The P.W.25, brother of the deceased, in his evidence did not endorse that he had come to know from his mother about any such incident in the matrimonial house of his deceased sister.

The evidence of the P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee, quoted above, we are inclined to think, is an untrue statement. It is unthinkable that the difficulties encountered by the daughter in her matrimonial house would not be divulged by her mother to the father of the daughter. This was in all likelihood resorted to with the object of nullifying the evidence of the father. The mother in her cross-examination also deposed that she did not know the hand-writing of her daughter which, in our view, is unbelievable. This ignorance was feigned with the deliberate object of suppressing some unpleasant discoveries which would otherwise have been made from the diary allegedly maintained by the deceased where there was reference to some romantic affairs which the deceased allegedly had with another boy. The P.W.23, Amitabha Chatterjee, another relation of the deceased, who was very vocal, deposed that she came to know upon interviewing the deceased during her life time that she had lost all happiness in her life but he refused or failed to identify the hand-writing of the deceased. The rest of the relations examined in this case are also not believable, for some of them deposed that although they came to know about the unhappy situation in the matrimonial house of the deceased but they did not disclose the same to the father of the deceased. Most of them also had not disclosed any such incident during their examination u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Investigating Officer. The evidence of the P.W.2, Sudhindra Nath Chatterjee, father of the deceased, provides us with adequate assurance that there was no demand for any dowry. The in-laws of the deceased may have criticised that the jewelleries, which had been given, were all old fashioned but that does not mean that any dowry was demanded or that the victim was treated with cruelty.

The third point advanced by Mr. Dutta Gupta is equally without any merit. The father of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief, deposited that "My daughter received normal reception at her matrimonial home."

The incident concerning gold given by the deceased to the P.W.9, Chaitanya Shaw, for conversion is really interesting. We would like to quote the evidence of the jewellery himself who deposed as follows:

On 24th dec. after her marriage, pinki didimoni came to me at our shop. She brought a couple of ear-rings weighing 4 annas of gold and asked me to covert those to 4 pieces of churis. As I pointed out that 4 pieces of churis could not be made out of that quantum of gold, she asked me to retain 2 ear-rings till she would supply me some other quantum.

The evidence of the P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee, the mother of the deceased, in that regard is as follows:

Received telephone call from my daughter for the last time on 1st January, 1988 at the mid-day. She asked me over phone to go to the shop of Chaitanya by the side of our house and to forbid him to melt the ear ring which, she told she had given to him earlier for conversion to churis and for which Abhijit was torturing her and even called her thief and slapped her. She also told that she would no more survive under that unbearable circumstances.

That very day at night we received a telephonic Call from the father in law of my daughter telling that Pinki was ailing seriously and was bleeding from mouth and nose. He also asked us to visit Pinki immediately. I, my husband and my son. Saranya rushed to the house of my daughter at that night.

On arrival at the house I found my daughter laid on the bed. We also found a police officer standing there. The Police officer told me that my daughter had killed herself by hanging.

From the evidence of the P.W.9, Chaitanya Shaw, and the P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee, we are inclined to think that the victim was a mentally retarded person. She may not have been insane in that sense, but she was simple and childish. No other theory can explain her conduct. A twenty-one years old woman, which she was, gave two ear-rings containing four annas of gold, that is to say, less than 3 gms. of gold for conversion into four bangles. This can only be done by a child. But when this was done by a grown up adult, aged twenty-one years, that would certainly bear evidence as regards her mental condition. From the evidence of the P.W.9, Chaitanya Shaw, it is clear that when he pointed out that four bangles could not be made out of two ear-rings, she told him that she would give him more gold. According to the evidence of the P.W.22, Smt. Namita Chatterjee, she was told by her deceased daughter that her husband, Abhijit Mukherjee, had slapped her concerning that incident and she did not want the earrings to be converted into bangles. This is quite possible. Abhijit Mukherjee, husband of the deceased, may have been enraged by the childish conduct of his wife. He may even have slapped. But that lone incident does not amount to any cruelty on the basis of which a presumption u/s 113A or 113B of the Evidence Act can be drawn. This is a common wear and tear of domestic life. People have to be tolerant. If somebody is oversensitive, which a prudent person would ignore, and takes an extreme step to put an end to his or her life, it cannot be viewed with any amount of sympathy by the society. Misplaced sympathy is itself a malady capable of doing more harm than any benefit to the society. The victim in this case, we are convinced, could have been a mentally retarded person which is further fortified from the fact that she passed her Madhyamik Examination, that is, she passed her class 10 examination at the age of twenty-two years. Her father gave evidence that she passed out from her matrimonial house. She was given in marriage at the age of twenty-one years. Therefore, she was twenty-two years old when she passed her Madhyamik Examination. That goes to show that she may not have been a normal person. Reference in this regard may be made to the following observation made by the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, .

If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

We, for the reasons indicated above, do not find any substance in the third submission.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is affirmed. The respondents are discharged of the obligation under the bail-bond, if any, furnished by them.

The Criminal Section of this Court is directed to send down a copy of this judgment and the lower Court records to the concerned learned trial Court for information and necessary action.

Let urgent xerox certified copy of this Court, if applied for, be delivered to the learned counsel, for the parties, upon compliance of all usual formalities.

Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.

I agree.