Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 247 (CAL)

Susanta Pramanik v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-05-08

TOUFIQUE UDDIN

body2013
Judgment :- Toufique Uddin, J. This appeal arose out of the judgment and order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Haldia, Purba Medinipore, in Sessions Trial No. 9(6) of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No. 40/March/2007 and thereby convicting the appellant for commission of offence under sections 498A/306 of Indian Penal Code. In the background of this appeal, the fact in a nutshell is as follows: On 14.01.2003 one Satyaranjan Das of Village Haldia under P.S. Sutahata lodged an FIR alleging that the marriage of his elder daughter Moyna Rani with Susanta Pramanik(accused) took place seven years back according to Hindu rites and custom. But after the marriage the members of the in-laws place as well as the husband of his daughter unleashed torture for the purpose of bringing more dowry articles. As the demand could not be met, they also physically and mentally tortured the victim. The accused Susanta used to take liquor with his friends inside his house and his daughter protested that act but she was tortured by the accused. The accused had a love affair with one Laxmi Adak and that accused instigated his wife to commit suicide so that he could marry that lady. Ultimately on 12.01.2003 (Sunday) at about 6-00 p.m. the victim committed suicide. Sensing a foul play, a complaint was lodged with the police. After investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under sections 498A/306 of Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate. After hearing of both sides, learned Trial Court framed charge under sections 498A/306 of IPC against the accused person. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him when the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To contest this case the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including Court witness while none was examined on the side of the defence. However, the accused person was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination and reply given by the accused person at the time of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. was denial of offence with a plea of innocence. On trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant by the impugned judgment. On trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant by the impugned judgment. Now, the point for consideration is if the impugned judgment suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not. Sections 498A and 306 of IPC read as follows : “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. – (1) W hoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” “306. Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” The learned Counsel for the appellant amongst others contended interalia on the following points: a) The case is not at all proved because of the timings as noted regarding the point of death and the remaining her in the Hospital with a battle for her life and so and so; b) Delay of two days’ has not been explained; c) Inquest report does not show the semblance of the evidence that there was unleashing of any torture on the ground of demand of further dowry; d) The marriage was a out come of a love affair and initially the couple had a peaceful and smooth marital life during the first year but subsequently the alleged bickering developed; e) Last but not the least, argument of the learned Counsel Mr. Edulji, appearing on behalf of the appellant, was that though he is not admitting that the prosecution is successful in bringing home the charge yet if at all the Hon’ble Court holds that the accused is guilty in that event the sentence already suffered to the extent of about five years including remission out of six years should be converted to the period of sentence. Regarding the conversion of sentence, learned Counsel of the State did not seriously challenge and left the matter upto the discretion of the Court. To appreciate the case from a better angle, some relevant pieces of evidence are required to be jot down here. It is true in a case of 498A of IPC the infliction of torture has to be proved as a plinth on which the edifice of the case is to be raised. To bring home the charge under section 306 of the IPC the ingredients should be such that there shall be a continuous harassment in the form of ‘goading’, ‘prompting’, ‘provocating’, ‘instigating’ or so pushing the victim to such a stage that finding no other alternative, she will have to commit suicide. On careful consideration of evidence I find that here and there minor discrepancies cropped up. But those are not touching the very route of the case. Of course, regarding the infliction of torture there are pieces of evidence which cannot be thrown away as the same has come down not only from the mouth of the relation witnesses only but also from other witnesses. At the same time also it has come in the record that the husband after one year of marriage was locked in extramarital relationship with one Laxmi Adak over which the deceased raised vociferous protest only to have the ignominy of being tortured in a continuous manner to push the victim to the path of throwing away her life. The Doctor’s evidence played a vital role here. In 313 examination I find that the accused Susanta Pramanik was 37 years old in 2008 i.e. now he is around 42 years. It has emerged from the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the State that by this time including remission period according to Jail Code and pre-trial investigation detention the appellant is about 5 (five) years. It has emerged from the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the State that by this time including remission period according to Jail Code and pre-trial investigation detention the appellant is about 5 (five) years. Now, considering the entire gamut of the matter in the light of the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the State, I think that the purpose of justice will be sub-served if the appeal is disposed of as under: The order of conviction as passed by the impugned judgment is affirmed but the sentence is modified to the extent that the substantial part of the sentence, shall be restricted upto 31st July, 2013, that is, more or less about five years. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part and disposed of. The appellant be released from bail bond and set at free immediately after 31.7.2013 if he is not wanted in any other case. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the learned Trial Court immediately. Criminal Section is directed to supply the urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment to the parties, if applied for.