Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 339 (GAU)

Uttam Deb v. State of Tripura

2011-04-13

C.R.SARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-9-01 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in S.T. 156(WT/K)/1999. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: Smt. Jharna Debnath (hereinafter called 'the deceased'), daughter of the informant (PW 1) had fallen in love with the Appellant and they performed their marriage and thereafter, they started living as husband and wife in their marital home. After about three/four months of the said marriage, the deceased came to her father's house and informed him that she was assaulted, in her marital home demanding of television, radio etc. Though the deceased requested her father to arrange for providing a television and a radio, her father refused to do so. After about one month, the deceased again visited her father's house with a fracture injury on her head and informed him that she was assaulted by her husband demanding dowry. According to the informant, the deceased had consumed something and she was taken to the hospital wherein she breathed her last. The Medical officer, who performed the autopsy opined that the death was caused due to consumption of poison. On earlier occasions, i.e. prior to her death, she informed PW 3, PW 4, PW 7 and PW 10 regarding torture in connection with demand of dowry. The father of the deceased, on the day of the death of his daughter, lodged FIR with the O.C., Kalyanpur police station and on receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case against the Appellant and his parents under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called, 'the IPC') and launched investigation into the matter. At the close of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under Section 498A and 304B/34 IPC, against the Appellant and his parents and forwarded them to the court to stand trial. The offence, under Section304B IPC, being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai framed charges under Sections 498A and 304B/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses including the Medical officer, who conducted post mortem operation and the Investigating officer. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses including the Medical officer, who conducted post mortem operation and the Investigating officer. The evidence for prosecution, being closed, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations, brought against them and declined to adduce any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge, considering the evidence on record, held the Appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 304B/498A IPC and accordingly, convicted him for the said offences. The other two accused persons i.e. the parents of the Appellant, were acquitted for want of evidence. For his conviction under Section 304 IPC, the learned trial Judge sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years without requiring him to suffer any punishment under Section 498A IPC, on the ground that substantive punishment was awarded under Section 304B IPC, which was a major offence. 3. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, taking this Court through the evidence on record, has submitted that there is no sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence to show that there was any demand for dowry and that the deceased committed suicide following any cruelty or harassment committed by her husband or any relative of her husband, in connection with the demand of dowry. It is also submitted that as the death of the deceased cannot be termed as "dowry death", the learned trial Judge committed error by holding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304B IPC. 4. Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment and order has submitted that there is sufficient evidence, more particularly, the evidence of PW 1, PW 3, PW 4, PW 7 and PW 10, indicating that the deceased was tortured by her husband in connection with the demand of dowry i.e., television etc and that the father of the Appellant could not meet the said demand. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that, considering entire facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, it is not difficult to understand that the deceased was tortured by her husband demanding television etc, and that failing to meet the said demand and also being unable to bear the torture, at the hands of her husband (i.e the Appellant), the deceased, having no other alternative, committed suicide. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that as the deceased committed suicide, which was not a death under normal circumstances, followed by torture in connection with demand of television, radio etc, within seven years, i.e., the statutory period, prescribed by Section304B IPC and Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act, her death can be deemed to have been caused by her husband. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant under Section 304B IPC, requiring no interference by this Court. 5. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, I feel it appropriate, to briefly, scan the evidence on record. 6. Sri Umesh Debnath i.e. the father of the deceased, who lodged the FIR as informant, deposed as PW 1. In his evidence, PW 1 stated that after about two to three months of her marriage, the deceased, who had fallen in love with the accused and consequently, entered into marriage with the Appellant, came to his house. According to PW 1, he told the deceased that he would not give her shelter unless she visited along with her husband and parents-in-law. After about one month of her said visit, according to PW 1, she again went to her father's house and informed him that she was assaulted, in her matrimonial home, demanding television, radio etc, but PW 1 refused to comply with the said demand. PW 1, further stated that, after about one month of her said visit, she again went to his house, with fracture injury on her head, and she informed him that she was tortured by her husband demanding dowry. He further stated that the deceased, who was upset, consumed something for which she was taken to hospital, wherein she was declared dead due to consumption of poison. He exhibited the FIR as Exbt.P/1 and his signature thereon as P/1/1. He further stated that the deceased, who was upset, consumed something for which she was taken to hospital, wherein she was declared dead due to consumption of poison. He exhibited the FIR as Exbt.P/1 and his signature thereon as P/1/1. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the deceased was his adopted daughter, who was arrogant and that earlier also, she had consumed poison, when she was ten to twelve years old. He denied the suggestion that she had consumed poison on being rebuked by him. Though PW 1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, his defence regarding demand of dowry and torture in respect of the deceased could be demolished. From his evidence, it transpires that the deceased, on being assaulted by her husband in connection with demand of dowry, visited her parents' house and she committed suicide by consuming poison, on the same day. 7. Sri Samir Chanda alias Jhantu (PW 2) was declared hostile by the prosecution. However, he stated that the deceased was the wife of the Appellant and that their marriage was solemnized two and a half years ago. He stated that he heard that deceased had committed suicide. This witness stated nothing regarding torture in connection with the dowry. 8. Smt. Archana Debroy, who was a neighbourer of the deceased, deposed as PW 3. She stated that, after her marriage, the deceased used to visit her parents' house and during such visit, she told her that she was tortured by her husband demanding television and other articles. She further stated that on her last visit to her parents' house, she had visited her house also. Supporting the evidence of PW 1, this witness stated that, on the same day at about 1-30 /2-00 pm, deceased was found lying on the floor and something was oozing out from her mouth and that she died in the hospital. In her cross-examination, PW 3 stated that the deceased, during her last visit, did not tell her anything. However, from the evidence of PW 3, which remained undemolished it can be gathered that demand of television and other articles was made by the husband of the deceased and this supports the evidence of PW 1. 9. In her cross-examination, PW 3 stated that the deceased, during her last visit, did not tell her anything. However, from the evidence of PW 3, which remained undemolished it can be gathered that demand of television and other articles was made by the husband of the deceased and this supports the evidence of PW 1. 9. Smt. Shankari Nath Sharma, who deposed as PW 4, stated that the deceased was the wife of the Appellant and that she attended the 'boubhat' ceremony organized in the house of the Appellant, in connection with the marriage of the deceased with the Appellant. She further stated that once the deceased had jumped into a 'chhera' (a narrow ditch where water accumulates) and that on being rescued, she told her that she had done so for saving herself from the pain of assault, caused by her husband. She clearly stated that the deceased told her that her husband used to assault and torture her. She further stated that on the day of her death, she informed her that her husband had assaulted her demanding her to bring a television from her fathers' house and that she had told her that she would go to her parents' house, on the same evening, to fetch a television. In her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the deceased did not tell her that she was tortured by her husband regarding demand of television. The evidence of PW 4 that the husband of the deceased had tortured her in connection with the demand of a television remained undemolished. Hence, there is sufficient corroboration, in the evidences of PW 1 and PW 4, leading to the safe conclusion that, on the date of committing suicide (i.e. unnatural death), the deceased was tortured/assaulted by her husband in connection with the demand of television i.e. dowry. 10. Smt. Jyoti Barman, who deposed as PW 5, stated that the deceased was married by the Appellant and that she attended the 'boubhat' ceremony, arranged in connection with the said marriage. She also stated that due to certain quarrel between the couple, the deceased had, once, jumped into the cherra (ditch). This witness stated that the deceased did not tell her anything regarding demand made by her husband. Carefully perusing the evidence of the said witness, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, it is found that the deceased was tortured by her husband. This witness stated that the deceased did not tell her anything regarding demand made by her husband. Carefully perusing the evidence of the said witness, who was declared hostile by the prosecution, it is found that the deceased was tortured by her husband. 11. Smt. Parulbala Deb, PW 6, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, stated that she was informed by the deceased that she was assaulted and misbehaved by her husband. 12. Smt. Sabita Deb, PW 7, stated that the deceased visited her house on three occasions at the interval of one to two months and that during her such visit she told her that she was assaulted by her husband, demanding television and radio etc. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but her evidence could not be demolished. 13. Sri Nikhil Sutradhar, who was the employer of the Appellant deposed as PW 8 and stated that the wife of the deceased showing him marks of injuries had informed him that she was assaulted by her husband. 14. Sri Jagadish Chandra Deb, PW 9, was the scribe of the FIR. He has exhibited the FIR as Exbt.P/1. 15. Smt. Suniti Deb, who deposed as PW 10, stated that the deceased told her that she was harassed by her husband and mother-in-law demanding a television and that she came to know that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. 16. Sri Ratan Lal Bhadra, PW 11, Sri Pradip Kumar Bhowmik, PW 12 and Sri Bijoy Kumar Nath, PW 13, being the police officers, investigated into the matter and after completion of the investigation, PW 13 submitted the charge sheet under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. PW 12, the Officer-in-Charge of the police station stated that on 26-4-98, he received the FIR, Exbt.P/1 and registered the case. According to PW 12, he endorsed the investigation to Sri Ratan Lal Bhadra, i.e. PW 11, who also launched the investigation into the matter. Sri Ratan Lal Bhadra (PW 11) stated that on 26-4-98, he, as directed by the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police (Law and Order) had handed over the case docket to the Sub Divisional Police Officer i.e. PW 13, who had submitted the charge sheet. 17. Dr. Rathindra Laskar, the Medical officer, who performed the autopsy on 27-4-98, deposed as PW 14. 17. Dr. Rathindra Laskar, the Medical officer, who performed the autopsy on 27-4-98, deposed as PW 14. According to PW 14, the dead body was taken to him and he performed the autopsy at about 2 pm. The said Medical officer stated that he did not notice any external injury on the dead body but found organo phosphorous compound like smell from the stomach of the deceased. He opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to cardio respiratory failure due to organo phosphorous compound poison. According to the Medical officer, the death was suicidal in nature. In his cross-examination, he firmly denied the suggestion that without chemical examination of the viscera, the cause of the death of a person, due to consumption of poison, cannot be detected. The Medical officer, in his cross-examination, clearly stated that he found organo phosphorous like smell in the stomach of the deceased after dissecting the same. There is nothing to controvert his evidence. Hence, his evidence, coupled with the evidence of PW 1 clearly establish that the deceased died due to consumption of poison i.e. she committed suicide. 18. PW 1, i.e., the father of the deceased clearly stated that the deceased had consumed something and saliva had come out due to such consumption. From the evidence of the witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 10, it is found that the deceased was quite healthy at the time of leaving her matrimonial house and she went to her parents' house for bringing a television, on being demanded by her husband. Considering entire evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence of Medical officer, it is found that the death of the deceased was unnatural i.e. not under normal circumstances. Careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of PW 1, PW 3, PW 4, PW 7 and PW 10, clearly lead to find that she was tortured and harassed by her husband, demanding television i.e. dowry. The above discussed evidence indicates that, on the date of her death also, she was assaulted by her husband, compelling her to visit her father's house for fetching a television to her marital home. But her father refused to provide her a television. The above discussed evidence indicates that, on the date of her death also, she was assaulted by her husband, compelling her to visit her father's house for fetching a television to her marital home. But her father refused to provide her a television. The attending facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, inspires confidence to believe that the assault/torture caused by her husband with the demand of television (i.e. dowry), and probably, her frustration due to her failure to arrange a television led her to decide to end her life by consuming organo phosphorous substance. 19. From the evidence on record, it is found that it has been clearly established that the deceased was the wife of the Appellant and they had hardly completed the first anniversary of their marriage. Section 304B IPC, which reads as follows makes it obligatory to deem that the husband or any relative of the husband is held guilty of offence under Section 304B IPC, if the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative or her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. 304 B-Dowry death-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative or her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Section 113B of the Evidence Act which reads as follows also provides the provision for drawing presumption with regard to dowry death. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Section 113B of the Evidence Act which reads as follows also provides the provision for drawing presumption with regard to dowry death. 113 B- Presumption as to dowry death- When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman has been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. 20. As discussed above, it has been well established that the deceased was tortured and assaulted by her husband, in connection with the demand of dowry, and soon before her death i.e. on the date of her death itself, she was assaulted by her husband in connection with such demand. 21. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Appellant committed the offence under Section304B IPC and as such, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant under Section 304B IPC. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. 23. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Return the lower court records. Appeal dismissed.