C.R. Sarma, J.@mdashThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 24.01.2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, WestTripura, Agartala, in S.T. 182 (WT/A) of 1997. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-Appellant and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
3. The prosecution case, as revealed at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows:
Smti. Kanta Thapa (hereinafter called ''the deceased'') was given in marriage to Sri Khokan Bhowmik (Respondent No. 1) on 18.05.1996, and thereafter they used to live as husband and wife. At the time of marriage, the parents of the bride had given Rs. 27,000/- in cash to the bride-groom and another amount of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing TV etc. After her marriage, the deceased, while visiting her parents, informed the latter that she was subjected to mental and physical torture by her husband. On 01.09.1996, she came to her parental house and informed her parents that her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from them for constructing a house, but the parents of the deceased, failing to meet the said demand, told her that they would, shortly, visit her husband and discuss the matter. However, on 06.09.1996, in the morning at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling. Due to absence of the husband of the deceased at the relevant time, her brother-in-law Sri Swapan Bhowmik (one of the Appellants) lodged an FIR with the O/c Agartala East Police station, informing him that on 06.09.1996, at about 10.30 a.m., his sister-in-law namely Smti Kanta Bhowmik had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling of her room. Accordingly, police registered a case as East P.S. U/D Case No. 67/96 u/s 174 Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the deceased was sent for post mortem examination and her autopsy was done. On 07.09.1996, Sri Ram Bahadur Thapa (P W1), i.e. the father of the deceased, lodged a written complaint (Ext. P/l) with the O/C Agartala East P.S., disclosing that his said deceased daughter was mentally and physically tortured by her husband and, that the husband of the deceased was given Rs. 27,000/- at the time of marriage. It was also mentioned that the husband of the deceased used to ask her to get out of her room and that, being unable to bear the pain of physical as well as mental torture inflicted on her by her husband and his younger brother namely Sri Swapan Bhowmik, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in her room. On receipt of the said information, police treating the same as FIR, registered a case, being East Agartala P.S. Case No. 135/96, under Sections 498(A)/306 of IPC and launched investigation into the matter. At the close of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the accused persons under Sections 498(A)/306 IPC and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial.
4. The offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused persons under Sections 498(A)/306 and 304(B) of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Police Officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations, brought against them and examined one witness as DW1.
6. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused persons, beyond all reasonable doubt, and, accordingly, the learned trial Judge recorded the acquittal of the accused persons. Aggrieved, the State has come up with this appeal, challenging the order of acquittal.
7. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-Appellant, taking me through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that there is sufficient cogent and reliable evidence against the accused persons and that the learned trial Judge committed error by failing to properly appreciate the evidence on record, in its true perspective. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, further submitted mat, in view of the substantive evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge should have convicted the accused persons and as such the impugned judgment and order is liable to be reversed and convicting the Appellants/accused persons under Sections 498A/306/304B of IPC.
8. Refuting the said arguments, advanced on behalf of the State-Appellant, Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents, drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR (Ext. P/l), lodged by the father of the deceased and the contradictions available in the evidence on recorded, has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused persons had treated the deceased with cruelty demanding dowry and that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide. It is also submitted that there is no sufficient reliable and cogent evidence to believe that the accused persons had demanded dowry from the parents of the deceased. The learned Counsel taking me through the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that the learned trial Judge has passed a reasoned judgment and order, which needs no interference by this Court, in an appeal against acquittal.
9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing for both the parties, and to examine the correctness of findings of the learned trial Judge, I feel it appropriate to, briefly, recapitulate the evidence on record.
10. The written complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased, Sri Ram Bahadur Thapa, who was examined himself as PW 1. The PW 1, in his evidence, stated that, at the time of marriage of his daughter, apart from giving some ornaments to the deceased, an amount of Rs. 27,000/- was paid to her husband on being demanded. He stated that, he also paid Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a TV set. PW 1 further stated that after about 15 days from her marriage, the deceased visited his house and reported that her marital life did pot pass peacefully and that she was mentally and physically tortured by her husband and his brother Sri Swapan Bhowmik. PW 1 further stated that, on 01.09.1996, in the morning, the deceased came to her house and told him that her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash for construction of a building. According to this witness, due to his inability to fulfil the said demand, he told his daughter that he (PW 1) would be visiting her marital home and would discuss the matter with her husband. PW 1 further stated that though he had the intention to visit the marital home of the deceased on 08.09.1996, the deceased committed suicide on 06.09.1996. In his cross-examination, PW 1 stated that at the time of interrogation by the Investigating Officer, he had told the police officer that the accused Khokan Bhowmik i.e. the husband of the deceased never demanded any cash or kind from him after the marriage. As recorded by the learned trial Judge, PW 1 did not state anything regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/- before the Investigating Officer, at the time of recording his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure.
11. Carefully perusing the evidence of PW 1, it is found that this witness did not state before the Investigating Officer, at the time of making statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. PW 1 has exhibited the complaint lodged by him with the police as Ext. P/l. In Ext. P/l, which was lodged after the occurrence i.e. after the death of the deceased, no mention was made regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-. In the said written complaint, the PW 1 stated regarding payment of Rs. 27,000/- at the time of marriage and the information received from his daughter regarding torture meted out to her. If his son-in-law had demanded Rs. 50,000/- as claimed by PW 1, there was no reason not to mention about such demand in the said written complaint. Though Ext. P/l was treated as FIR, from the record, it is found that prior to receipt of the said Ext. P/l by the police, Sri Swapan Bhowmik had informed the police about the death of the deceased on 06.09.1996 itself. Therefore, the information lodged by Sri Swapan Bhowmik, was the FIR, which moved the investigating agency into action. At best, the Ext. P/l was a written statement made by the PW 1. Failure to disclose about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- in the said written complaint/statement, raises doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story itself. This doubt is fortified by the failure of PW 1 to disclose, regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/- before the Investigating Officer at the time of recording his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is found that the PW 1 made the said disclosure regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/- only at the time of giving evidence in the Court. That apart, his statement that he had told the police that his son-in-law did not demand any cash or kind from him after the marriage, belies the claim of the prosecution that the husband of the deceased had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the parents of the deceased.
12. PW 2, Smti. Mithu Debnath, aged about 12 years, is another important witness, who used to reside with the said couple as a domestic helper. This witness clearly stated that the deceased and her husband used to live peacefully and that on the day of incident, at about 5.30 a.m., the husband of the deceased had left for Kalachara and after his departure, a person namely Mritunjoy (PW 9) came to the house of the deceased for attending tuition. According to this witness, the deceased committed suicide at about 9.30 a.m. and she saw her hanging from the ceiling fan. She was the first person to saw her hanging from the ceiling fan. She also stated that, immediately after detecting the said suicide, she had informed one person namely Tapan and others including Sri Swapan Bhowmik (one of the accused person). She further stated that she had never seen the said couple quarrelling with each other. In her cross-examination, this witness stated that, on the previous day of the occurrence, two boys came and handed over a piece of paper to the deceased and that, after reading the said paper, the deceased had expressed that she had no other alternative but to die.
13. Sri Mritunjoy Roy, who deposed as PW 9, stated that he used to teach the students of the husband of the deceased. He also stated that on the fateful morning, he went to the house of deceased for attending tuition and that he left the house at about 8.30/9.00 a.m. Supporting the evidence of PW 2, this witness stated that on the said morning, the husband of the deceased had left his house for Sabroom. He further stated that before leaving the house of the deceased, after completing the tuition, he had talk with the deceased.
14. A combined reading of the evidence of PW 2 and P W 9, lead to find that, on the date of occurrence, since morning, the husband of the deceased was not available in his house, as he had left for Sabroom and the PW 9 had left the house of the deceased after talking with her. Therefore, it is found that till leaving the house of the deceased by PW 9, the deceased was alive. This indicates that the husband of the deceased was not present in his residence at the time of death of his wife. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the husband of the deceased had either killed or hanged the deceased after committing the murder. Hence, it is clearly found that the deceased committed suicide during the absence of her husband.
15. From the evidence of PW 2, it is also found that after receiving a piece of paper from two boys, the deceased had expressed that she had no option but to die. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said statement of PW 2. Therefore, her evidence lead to find that the deceased got mentally disturbed after receiving the said communication and probably, she choose to finish her life by committing suicide.
16. PW 3, Sri Hemendra Saha, who was a neighbour of the husband of the deceased, stated that he was never reported that the deceased was assaulted or tortured or subjected to any cruelty by her husband.
17. PW 4, Sri Kajal Ch. Choudhury, who was once the Secretary of the local Club namely ''Bharat Tirtha Club'', stated that the deceased committed suicide and that he did not know as to why she had committed suicide. In his cross-examination, this witness further stated that though he was the Secretary of the local Club, neither the deceased nor her father had ever made any complaint about any ill treatment.
18. Sri Ajit Bhattacharjee, who deposed as PW 5, was the scribe of the written complaint lodged by PW 1. In his cross-examination, he stated that the financial condition of Sri Khokan Bhowmik (husband of the deceased) was good.
19. Sri Dipak Ch. Deb, who played the role of a negotiator of the said marriage, deposed as PW 6. He stated that though there was no formal demand of dowry from the side of the accused, it was settled that Rs. 30,000/- in cash would be given to the bride at the time of marriage and, accordingly, the said amount was given in his presence by the father of the deceased at the time of marriage. He also stated that, as agreed, Rs. 10,000/- was paid for purchasing a TV. In his cross-examination, PW 6 stated that at the time of settlement of the marriage, the accused Sri Khokan Bhowmik was not present, but the guardians of the bride and the bride-groom had settled the marriage. He further stated that the deceased never informed him that she was assaulted or tortured or treated with cruelty by her husband. Even the family members of the deceased also did not inform him regarding any ill treatment or demand of dowry.
From the evidence of PW 6, who was the mediator in the said marriage, it is found that, in fact, there was no demand of dowry from the side of the bride. However, as per custom, the bride was given Rs. 30,000/- in cash and another amount of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing TV. This witness did not state anything regarding ill treatment or demand of dowry. As the PW 6 was a negotiator of the said marriage, if there was any ill treatment or demand of dowry made by the husband of the deceased, the parents of the deceased should have informed the same to PW 6. From the evidence of PW 6, it is found that he was never informed about the demand of dowry and ill treatment. Similarly, ignorance of the PW 4 and PW 5, who were known by the deceased and her parents, about such treatment and demand also raises doubt about the prosecution version.
20. PW 7, Sri Kajal Deb, who was a police officer, working in the East Agartala police station, received the written complaint from the PW 1 and, accordingly, he registered the same as FIR. He has exhibited the said FIR as Ext. P/1.
21. PW 8, Sri Pijush Kanti Das, was the Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy of the deceased. PW 8 stated that he found the following injuries in respect of the deceased:
Transversely circular continuous ligature marks low down in the neck from thyroid area below downwards with bruise and chymosis having swelling face with protrusion eyes.
The Medical Officer opined that the injury was ante mortem and that the death was caused 10 to 15 hours prior to the examination. This witness further opined that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal asphyxial death (hanging). However, he opined that it was not a clear case of suicidal death, but a case of homicidal asphyxias death (hanging).
22. Though the opinion rendered by the Medical Officer aforesaid raises doubt about the cause of death, there is no substantive evidence on record to find that the accused persons had caused the death of the deceased. The involvement of the accused persons is ruled out by the evidence of P Ws 2 and 9 aforesaid.
23. Sri Gopal Bahadur Thapa, elder brother of the deceased, deposing as PW10, stated that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was given to the accused Sri Khokan Bhowmik and that his sister had informed, during her visit to their house that, she was tortured by her husband. PW 10 further stated that the husband of the deceased had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from his father. He also stated that if the demand was not fulfilled then the torture would continue. PW 10, for the first time, made the statement that in the event of failure to meet the demand of Rs. 50,000/-, the torture would continue upon the deceased. The father of the deceased, who also stated that the deceased had informed him that her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/-, did not state anything regarding such threat. That apart, according to PW10, the husband of the deceased was paid Rs. 30,000/- at the time of the marriage, but his father i.e. PW 1, in his evidence, clearly stated that Rs. 27,000/- was paid in cash and another amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid towards purchasing a TV.
In view of the above, it is found that both the father and the son i.e. P Ws 1 and 10, gave contradictory statement regarding the amount, given to the husband of the deceased. That apart, in his cross-examination, PW 10 admitted that he did not tell the police, at the time of recording his statement, that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to the husband of the deceased. The learned trial Judge, has also recorded that the PW 10 did not state the police at the time of giving his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the evidence of PW 10 regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-, appears to be made for the first time in the Court at the time of giving evidence. As the PW 10 failed to make the disclosure regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-at the initial stage of making his statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is doubtful as to whether such demand was really made by the husband of the deceased or not. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that PW 10 had developed his version by stating regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/-.
24. Smti Kalpana Shib (PW 11) was the landlord in whose house the husband of the deceased used to live with his first wife, prior to his marriage with the deceased. She stated nothing regarding the demand of dowry and torture. Similarly, PW 12 Smti Alpana Bhowmik also had not stated anything incriminating against the accused, persons.
25. Smti Kamala Thapa, who was the mother of the deceased, deposed as PW 13. She also, contradicting,the statement of her husband (PW 1), stated that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was given to the husband of the deceased. She further stated that her daughter, during her visit to their house, used to complain that her husband tortured her mentally and physically. She also stated that the deceased was pressurised by her husband to bring Rs. 50,000/- for construction of a building and that she was beaten up in connection with cooking. In her cross-examination, this witness stated that at the time of negotiation of the marriage, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid through the mediator i.e. PW 6, as expenses towards the marriage. In view of the above, it appears that the said amount was paid as expenditure towards marriage and not as a dowry.
A careful reading of the evidence of PW 13, indicates that no physical torture or ill treatment was meted out to the deceased due to failure of the deceased to bring the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. What the PW 13 stated was that the deceased was pressurised to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for construction of a building on the front side. Therefore, it is found that the said amount, even if demanded by the husband of the deceased, was required for constructing a building. There is no substantive evidence on record to show that the said amount was demanded as dowry or that due to failure to meet the said amount, the deceased was ill treated. Admittedly, the deceased came, to her parents house on 1st September, 1996 and her parents had told her that they would visit her husband for discussing the matter regarding the said demand of Rs. 50,000/-, but on 06.09.1996, the deceased committed suicide. There is nothing on record to find as to what had happened during the intervening period w.e.f. 01.09.1996 to 06.09.1996. The prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate that due to failure of the deceased to meet the said demand of her husband, she was treated with any cruelty or ill treatment, compelling her to commit suicide.
26. PW 14 Smti Jhuma Thapa, the younger sister of the deceased also stated that her sister had placed a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for construction of a building by her husband. Her statement reads as follows:
My sister came to our house and placed a demand of Rs. 50,000/- for the construction of building by her husband.
A careful reading of the said statement indicates that the said amount was required for construction of a house. There is nothing on record to find that the said amount was demanded as dowry or that in the event of failure to meet the said demand, there was any threat of ill treatment or cruelty.
27. PW 15 Sri Bishnu Bahadur Chetri, who is the uncle of the deceased, contradicting the statement of PW 1, stated mat the husband of the deceased, was given Rs. 30,000/- in cash at the time of her marriage. He also stated that the deceased had informed him that her husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- for constructing a building in the front side of their house. This witness was silent regarding any dowry demand. His evidence does not indicate that due to failure of the deceased to meet the said demand, she was treated with cruelty.
28. PW 16 Smti Sandhya Chetri, an aunt of the deceased, stated that the deceased had told her that she was sent by her husband to collect Rs. 50,000/- for construction of a building.
29. PW 17 Sri Chandan Bhowmik stated nothing against the accused persons.
PW 18 Smti Niyoti Deb also contradicted the statement of PW 1 by stating that the husband of the deceased was paid Rs. 30,000/- at the time of marriage. She further stated mat the deceased had informed her that her (deceased) husband had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. From cross-examination of this witness, it is found that she did not state before the police regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/- at the time of making her statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is found that her statement regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-, was the first statement made before this Court. Her failure to make such disclosure before the Investigating Officer, at the time of making her statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, raises doubt about the truthfulness of her evidence.
PW 19 Sri Dulal Ch. Pal was the Investigating Officer, who submitted the chargesheet after the investigation.
30. DW1 Sri Ashutosh Chakraborty, who was the Assistant Head Master of Gardang Higher Secondary School, Sabroom, where the husband of the deceased used to work, stated that, on 6th and 7th September, 1996, Sri Khokan Bhowmik attended the school. The occurrence took place on 06.09.1996. From the evidence of P Ws 2 and 9, it has been already found that the accused Khokan Bhowmik was not available in his residence since early morning and that the deceased was alive before her husband leave his house.
31. From the evidence of the P Ws 1, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 16 aforesaid, nothing substantive could be found that the husband of the deceased had made any dowry demand and that due to failure of the deceased to meet such demand, she was treated with cruelty, which was sufficient to commit suicide. As discussed above, from the evidence of the mother of the deceased, it is found that Rs. 30,000/- was given as an expenditure of the marriage. Though the payment of Rs. 30,000/- at the time of marriage is doubtful, the said payment is not connected with any cruelty as well as the death of the deceased.
32. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence, as discussed above, it is found that the learned trial Judge, while rendering the judgment and order of acquittal, considered all aspects of the matter and duly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses.
33. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused persons.
34. As discussed above, the failure of PW 1 i.e. the father of the deceased to mention about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- in the FIR i.e. Ext. P/l, which was made at the initial stage of the case, raises doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story regarding demand of Rs. 50,000/-. That apart, I have already noticed that there are sufficient contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding demand of dowry and payment of Rs. 30,000/- at the time of marriage.
35. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the above discussion, it cannot be conclusively hold mat the accused persons had instigated or compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There are no ingredients of instigation or abatement. The prosecution also failed to adduce substantive evidence to establish that the deceased was treated with such physical and mental cruelty, which left the deceased with no other alternative but to commit suicide.
36. In view of the above discussion, this being an appeal against acquittal, I find no sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Return the Lower Court Records.
