Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 944 (GAU)

Amrit Lal Debnath v. State of Tripura

2010-12-20

B.D.AGARWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 25.08.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, in Sessions Trial 61 (WT/A) of 2000, whereby the Appellants have been convicted both under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant No. 1 is the husband and Appellant No. 2 is the father-in-law. The Appellant No. 1 has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years for his conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years with fine of Rs.1,000/-with default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months, for his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant No. 2 has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for his conviction under Section 498A and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years for his conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, in short, referred to as "the IPC"). Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, both the convicts have preferred this appeal. 2. Heard Sri D C Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants. Also heard Sri A Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Tripura. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record. 3. Apparently and admittedly, the deceased committed suicide within a period of 1½ years of her marriage with the Appellant No. 1. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined altogether 21 (twenty-one) witnesses, including the mother, brothers and relatives of the deceased as well as independent witnesses from the village of the accused persons and formal witnesses like doctors and Investigating Officers. In addition to the oral testimony of the witnesses, the prosecution also brought on record the 'dying statement/declaration' of the victim, which was proved through PW-3 (Medical Officer). 4. The record reveals that all the 3 (three) independent witnesses from the village of the accused persons were tendered by the prosecution. The defence did not cross-examine PWs-7 and 8, however, PW-9 was cross-examined and this witness has stated in the cross examination that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide on 2 (two) earlier occasions and she did not perform household works properly. 5. The informant (PW-1) is the brother of the deceased. The defence did not cross-examine PWs-7 and 8, however, PW-9 was cross-examined and this witness has stated in the cross examination that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide on 2 (two) earlier occasions and she did not perform household works properly. 5. The informant (PW-1) is the brother of the deceased. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he came to know about demand of money by his sister's husband only on 29.05.1999 when his sister was in hospital. Similarly, PW-4 who is also the brother of the deceased, has stated that he came to know about demand of money when his sister was in the hospital. PW-16 is the mother of the deceased. She is totally silent about the demand of money. 6. The victim's dying statement has been marked as Ext-P-3(1). In her statement, she has made a casual statement that after 3 (three) months of solemnization of marriage her husband asked her to bring money for the business purpose. In the said statement, the deceased did not allege that the accused persons repeated their demand. Be that as it may, neither any independent witness nor any of the brothers or mother of the deceased have supported the theory of demand of dowry. Hence, I am not persuaded to affirm the conviction of the Appellants under Section 498A of the IPC. Consequently, the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC is hereby set aside. 7. Coming to the offence of abetment of suicide, the deceased has given a vivid statement, while she was in the hospital. Apparently, the deceased set herself ablaze on 27.05.1999 and the dying statement was given in the hospital in the presence of the doctors and other staff on 29.5.1999. The said statement is a very elaborate one and in the said statement, the deceased has given tete-a-tete version as to how her husband used to physically torture her. The entire allegation of physical torture is against the husband only. One casual statement has been made against the father-in-law that he had instigated her husband to assault her. However, this statement is not corroborated by the witnesses. 8. No evidence was also tendered from the side of the accused persons. The entire allegation of physical torture is against the husband only. One casual statement has been made against the father-in-law that he had instigated her husband to assault her. However, this statement is not corroborated by the witnesses. 8. No evidence was also tendered from the side of the accused persons. It may be mentioned here that Section 113A of the Evidence Act gives discretion to the Court to draw presumption of abetment to suicide provided the woman commits suicide within a period of 7 (seven) years due to cruelty by her husband or other relatives. In the case before me, the deceased committed suicide within 1½ years of her marriage and even during this period, the deceased had attempted to commit suicide on 2 (two) occasions, as per PW-9. The defence failed to make out a case that the dying declaration was a fabricated one or that the same was made on being tuitered by the mother or brothers of the deceased. 9. Considering the entire testimony on record, the conviction of the Appellant No. 1, Sri Amrit Lal Debnath, under Section 306 IPC is hereby upheld. However, the Appellant No. 2, Sri Alanga Debnath, is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted from the conviction under Section 306IPC. 10. Coming to the question of sentence, it appears to me that although the informant had alleged that his sister was physically assaulted on the same day of committing suicide, but the Medical Report do not support this allegation. Besides this, independent witnesses have also not spoken about physical assault upon the deceased or about the demand of dowry. At the same time, the deceased had the tendency to commit suicide as per the testimony of PW-9. Besides this, evidence reveals that the husband of the deceased made all efforts to save the life of his wife by way of providing medical treatment in the hospital. 11. Considering all these mitigating factors, I reduce the sentence of the Appellant No. 1, Sri Amrit Lal Debnath, to 3 (three) years RI for his conviction under Section 306 IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months is upheld. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant No. 2, Sri Alanga Debnath, under Section 498A and 306 IPC, is hereby set aside. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months is upheld. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant No. 2, Sri Alanga Debnath, under Section 498A and 306 IPC, is hereby set aside. Similarly, the conviction of the Appellant No. 1, Sri Amrit Lal Debnath under Section 498A is also set aside. However, his conviction under Section 306 IPC is maintained, but the sentence of Appellant No. 1 is modified as indicated in the previous paragraph. 13. The Registry is directed to return the LC Rs forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment to the Lower Court below. On receipt of the LC Rs, the trial Court shall issue modified warrant in respect of the Appellant No. 1, Sri Amrit Lal Debnath. He is also directed to surrender in the trial Court to serve out the remaining sentence.