Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 527 (CAL)

Partha Pal v. State of West Bengal

2018-07-31

RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

body2018
JUDGMENT : Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. 1. The appellant was convicted against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 2010 & 15th February, 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Paschim Medinipur, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 27 of 2008, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under sections 498A & 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The crux of the allegations against the appellant is that on 14th August, 1999 one Badal Chandra Pal of village Banshda Paschim Medinipur gave her daughter Pushpa Pal in marriage with one Partha Pal of village Nigpapan, Paschim Medinipur. After marriage his daughter went to her matrimonial house and a son was born out of the wedlock. After the child birth, Partha Pal, the husband started doubting the character of his wife and used to assault her on regular basis. On 8th June, 2006 at 3 P.M. Badal Chandra Pal came to know that her daughter had died after consuming poison. 3. Ms. Rituparna Dey (Ghosh), learned Counsel argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not establish cruelty on the victim housewife. Furthermore, the accused Partha Pal was not present at the place of occurrence and there is no direct evidence that the appellant had ever assaulted the victim forcing her to commit suicide. The victim committed suicide as she had an amorous relation with the cousin of the appellant and was caught red handed by the para people in a compromising situation. Accordingly, she prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Faria Hossain appearing on behalf of the state argued that the evidence on record clearly established that the victim housewife committed suicide within six years of her marriage at her matrimonial home. The appellant was unable to give any plausible explanation leading to her untimely death. It was also submitted that there is ample evidence on record that the victim was subjected to torture including physical assault at her matrimonial home forcing her to commit suicide clearly establishing the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. It was also submitted that there is ample evidence on record that the victim was subjected to torture including physical assault at her matrimonial home forcing her to commit suicide clearly establishing the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of evidence on record. 6. PW-1, Goutam Datta being the brother-in-law (jamai babu) deposed in his evidence that the victim Pushpa got married to accused Partha Pal as per Hindu Rites and customs on 14th August, 2000 and they were blessed with a male child. Since birth of her son dispute cropped up in between the victim and the accused and the witness heard about the dispute in between the husband and wife from Pushpa the witness subsequently came to know that the accused suspected that Pushpa had some illicit connection with another person and for that reason he used to assault her off and on. He went out for his duty by keeping the victim under lock and key in his residence. The witness further told that the matter of torture was informed both by para people of accused as well as the victim and on several occasions they held a meeting to minimise the differences in between the victim and her husband/accused. The witness further stated that subsequently he heard that it was settled in that meeting that the victim will stay in her father’s house for three months along with her baby and during that period the accused will be going on making payment of Rs. 300/- per month for their maintenance. Thereafter, again on the day of jamaisasthi another meeting was held and the victim along with her baby went back to her matrimonial home with her husband. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2000, the witness received a telephone call that victim committed suicide by taking poison and subsequently his father-in-law, the de-facto complainant lodged the FIR at the local police station. The witness identifies the accused on dock and he was examined by police. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he used to reside in his working place at Calcutta and admitted that he did not know whether anything was reduced in writing in those meetings or not. The witness identifies the accused on dock and he was examined by police. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he used to reside in his working place at Calcutta and admitted that he did not know whether anything was reduced in writing in those meetings or not. He admitted one Biplab Das being the maternal cousin brother of the accused was known to him and he did not hear anything wrong about the victim and the accused prior to birth of their child and he deposed that he told the victim to make adjustment with her husband. 7. P.W. – 2, One Sachindra Nath Bose is the co-villager of the de facto complainant. He deposed that the victim Pushpa was known to him. She is the daughter of the de facto complainant. He identify the accused on dock and deposed that the marriage of the accused and the victim was solemnised on 14th June, 2000 as per Hindu Rites and customs and since marriage Pushpa used to reside in her matrimonial home with the accused as husband and wife and within their wedlock they have blessed with a male child. The witness further deposed that since birth of her son, the victim was subjected to torture of her husband both physically and mentally as the appellant suspected about the character of the victim. Off and on, he used to assault the victim which compelled her to take shelter in her father’s house. This witness deposed that for once or twice they held meeting with the para people of both the accused and the victim to solve the dispute in between them. In those meetings the accused assured them that no sort of torture would be inflicted to the victim in future and they will lead a happy marital life. But on 8th October, 2006 the accused severally assaulted Pushpa and due to such unbearable torture Pushpa was compelled to commit suicide by taking poison in her matrimonial house. She was taken to the hospital by the accused and ultimately she expired there. Thereafter, the father of the victim lodged the FIR. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not know the name of the co-villagers of the accused but Sushil Chandra Majumdar, Pulak Achariya and the accused himself were present in the meeting. The witness failed to say the exact date on which the meeting was held. Thereafter, the father of the victim lodged the FIR. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not know the name of the co-villagers of the accused but Sushil Chandra Majumdar, Pulak Achariya and the accused himself were present in the meeting. The witness failed to say the exact date on which the meeting was held. But he put his signature in the resolution in the meeting. He admitted that during investigation he did not hand over the copy of the resolution to the police and he had been in the village of the accused only for once on the date of salish. The witness also failed to say the exact date on which the accused started to inflict torture upon her but it started after birth of her son. 8. P.W. – 3, Adwaitya Mandal, this witness also identified the accused on dock and he deposed that the victim was known to her and she was subjected to torture by the accused/husband during her stay in her matrimonial home. The accused off and on used to assault her and Pushpa under compelling circumstances took shelter of her father’s house four years prior to the day of death. 9. P.W. – 4, the de facto complainant Badal Chandra Pal is the father of the victim. He deposed that the victim got married to appellant Partha as per Hindu Rites and customs. He identified the accused on dock. Their marriage was solemnised on 14th August, 2000. He deposed that the dispute started in between the victim and the accused since birth of their son and the accused started to inflict torture upon the victim both physically and mentally out of suspicion on his mind as he suspected an amorous relation between his maternal uncles son i.e. his cousin Badal and his wife and whenever his maternal cousin brother used to visit his house and also used to talk with the victim, the accused used to create scene and ultimately he ousted his cousin from his house. Even if the victim protests, in this regard the accused used to assault her and abuse her with filthy languages. The witness further deposed that the sister of the accused also tried to restrain him during her visit in his house and the accused became furious with her and abused her and ousted his sister from his house. Even if the victim protests, in this regard the accused used to assault her and abuse her with filthy languages. The witness further deposed that the sister of the accused also tried to restrain him during her visit in his house and the accused became furious with her and abused her and ousted his sister from his house. The witness further deposed that the village salish was held thrice in order to solve the dispute in between the accused and the victim. In those salish the accused assured that no further torture would be inflicted by him upon the victim but after some days again he started his torture. The witness deposed that his daughter told him during her visit in his house of such torture and ultimately due to such unbearable torture she committed suicide by taking poison. The witness lodged the FIR at the local police station which has been brought into evidence as exhibit – 1. The witness also put his signature in the inquest report which was held and prepared by the Executive Magistrate and his signature in the inquest report has been brought into evidence as exhibit – 2/1. It is the allegation in his evidence that the accused off and on instigated the victim to commit suicide and used to say that after her death he will marry again. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he mentioned in his FIR that the marriage of the victim was solemnised on 14th August, 1999 with the accused. In his cross-examination the witness deposed that during her visit in his house the victim had shown him the mark of injury received by her assault of the accused on her person. But he did not render any sort of medical aid to his daughter and he denied that one Biplab Das had some illicit connection with daughter. It is also denied by him that just on the day before the occurrence, the victim and Biplab were caught red handed in the house of the accused in compromising position and it was spread out in the village. The victim committed suicide by taking poison for that reason. 10. One Gopal Manna has been examined as P.W. – 5. He deposed that he was the barber in the marriage of the victim and the accused and subsequently he came to know that the victim committed suicide by taking poison. The victim committed suicide by taking poison for that reason. 10. One Gopal Manna has been examined as P.W. – 5. He deposed that he was the barber in the marriage of the victim and the accused and subsequently he came to know that the victim committed suicide by taking poison. The defence declined to cross-examine this witness. 11. P.W. – 6, Ambikesh Adhikari deposed that both the de facto complainant and the victim are known to him. He identified the accused on dock. His elder brother was the priest in the marriage of the victim and the accused. The witness corroborated the evidence of the P.W. – 4 that the dispute cropped up in between Pushpa and Partha as Partha suspected that Pushpa had some illicit connection with the maternal cousin brother of the Partha namely Biplab and the accused used to inflict torture upon the victim as a result she commit suicide by taking poison. The witness further deposed that he was present in the salish. In his cross-examination he admitted that he put his signature in the salish nama. He was examined by police and he denied that Pushpa had any illicit connection with Biplab. 12. P.W. – 7 Sital Nayek identified the accused on dock. He deposed that the victim committed suicide but he did not know why she committed suicide. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that the relevant point of time he was one of the elected member of the local gram panchayat. 13. P.W. – 8 is the brother of the accused. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. 14. P.W. - 9 is one of the co-villagers of the accused and he deposed that the accused had good relation with the victim during her stay in her matrimonial home. 15. P.W. – 10 is the constable and presently posted at Pingla P.S. as constable. On 11th June, 2006 he was posted at Debra P.S. on that date the wearing apparels of the victim were handed over to him by the autopsy surgeon after post mortem held over the dead body of the victim. Accordingly he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. The witness identified the wearing apparels of the victim on dock which has been brought into evidence as Mat. Exhibit – 1 series. Accordingly he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. The witness identified the wearing apparels of the victim on dock which has been brought into evidence as Mat. Exhibit – 1 series. He further deposed that the investigating officer seized those wearing apparels under proper seizure list in his presence and he put his signature in the seizure list as one of the witness his signature in the seizure list has been brought into evidence as exhibit – 3/1. Thereafter the witness also carried the dead body of the victim to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital for post mortem examination under proper dead body challan as per direction of the investigating officer and he put his signature in dead body challan as witness which has been brought into evidence as exhibit – 4/1. This witness identified the dead body of the victim to the autopsy surgeon. In his cross-examination this witness deposed that he put his signature the inquest report. 16. P.W. – 11 is the A.S.I. of police. On 11th June, 2006 he was attached to Debra Police Station as S.I. On that date the investigating officer of this case seized the wearing apparels of the deceased in presence of the witnesses under proper seizure list. This witness put his signature in the seizure list as seizure witness. His signature in the seizure list has been brought into evidence as exhibit – 3/2. The witness also identified the wearing apparels of the deceased on dock which have already been brought into evidence admitted that the seizure list of the wearing apparels of the deceased was made at the police station and he never visited the place of occurrence. 17. P.W. – 12 the Head Constable and presently posted at Pingal Police Station as Head Constable. He deposed that on 11th June, 2006 the investigating officer seized the wearing apparels of the victim under proper seizure list in his presence and he put his signature in the seizure list which has been brought into evidence as exhibit – 3/3. 18. P.W. – 13 is Doctor Dipak Kumar Mridha who held the post mortem over the dead body of the victim. In his examination in chief he deposed that the dead body of the victim was brought and identified to him by C/83 Nandalal Duari of Debra P.S. During examination no external injuries was found. 18. P.W. – 13 is Doctor Dipak Kumar Mridha who held the post mortem over the dead body of the victim. In his examination in chief he deposed that the dead body of the victim was brought and identified to him by C/83 Nandalal Duari of Debra P.S. During examination no external injuries was found. Stomach contains blakish fluid about 4000 ml. including the black granule and pungent smell mucosa haemorrhagic and all viscera are congested and on completion of examination he opined that the death of the victim was caused by effect of poison and is antimortem in nature. He deposed that he preserved the viscera for Forensic Laboratory Examination. The post mortem report prepared and signed by him has been brought into evidence as exhibit - 5. He deposed that the symptoms which he got during autopsy examination are findings of poison. In his cross examination the witness deposed that there was no external injuries like abrasion etc. 19. P.W. - 14 is the Executive Magistrate who held the inquest over the dead body of the victim on 8th June, 2006 as B.D.O. Debra in connection with Debra P.S. U.D case no. 44 of 2006 dated 8th June, 2006. He held the inquest in presence of the relatives of deceased. The inquest report prepared and signed by him has been brought into evidence as exhibit - 2. This witness further stated that the father of the deceased who identified the dead body to him made allegation before him at the time of holding inquest that her daughter was subjected to cruelty by her husband. The defence declined to cross examine this witness. 20. P.W. 15 is the Investigating Officer of this case, presently attached to Salbani Police Station as Sub-Inspector. He deposed that on 8th June, 2006 he was attached to Debra Police Station as Sub-Inspector. On that date the then Officer-in-Charge, Debra Police Station entrusted him for investigation of Debra P.S. U.D. Case No. 44/06, dated 8th June, 2006 as per requisition of the doctor. He went to Debra Rural Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the victim in presence of the witnesses. The de-facto complainant and his other relatives/witnesses identified the dead body of the victim. He prepared and signed the inquest report which has been brought into evidence as exhibit - 5. He went to Debra Rural Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the victim in presence of the witnesses. The de-facto complainant and his other relatives/witnesses identified the dead body of the victim. He prepared and signed the inquest report which has been brought into evidence as exhibit - 5. The Executive Magistrate also held a parallel inquest and the Investigating Officer (P.W.-15) collected the inquest report and that of the Executive Magistrate which has already been brought into evidence as exhibit - 2. Thereafter he sent the dead body of the victim to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital for P.M. examination under proper challan through C/83 Nandalal Duary. The concerned dead body challan has been brought into evidence as exhibit 4. On receipt of the written complaint from de-facto complainant Badal Chandra Pal, Debra P.S. case no. 69 of 2006, dated 8th June, 2006, under section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code was started by the then Officer-in-Charge, Debra Police Station. His endorsement on the written complainant has been brought into evidence as exhibit 1/1. The formal FIR written and signed by Officer-in-Charge, Sanjib Chakroborty has been brought into evidence as exhibit - 6. The witness further deposed that being entrusted for investigation he perused the written complaint, visited the place of occurrence prepared the rough sketch map along with index which has been brought into evidence as exhibit - 7. He also examined the available witnesses and recorded their statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During investigation he collected the inquest report held by the Executive Magistrate and the post mortem report of the deceased. He also seized the wearing apparels of the deceased in presence of the witnesses under proper seizure lists prepared and signed by him which has been brought into evidence as exhibit 3. Thereafter on completion of investigation pending FSL he submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code. This witness also deposed that P.W. 8, Subrata Pal during investigation told him that there was matrimonial dispute in between the accused and the victim. The witness further deposed that the P.W. -1 did not tell him in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused went out from his house after keeping the victim under lock and key. The witness further deposed that the P.W. -1 did not tell him in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused went out from his house after keeping the victim under lock and key. This witness also did not tell him during investigation that a meeting was held in between two Gram Panchayat wherein it was settled that the victim will stay in her father’s house along with her baby for three months and the accused will pay Rs. 300/- per month during that period. P.W. –1 did not tell the investigating officer that on the date of ‘Jamaisasthi’ the accused came to the father’s house of Pushpa and Pushpa returned to her matrimonial home along with her child. P.W. – 3 did not tell the investigating officer that during visit in her father’s house she displayed the mark of assault on her person to him. He also admitted that during investigation he did not examine the shop owner wherein Partha was a worker. 21. These are all the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Needless to say, the primary allegation against the accused person is physical and mental cruelty upon the victim lady forcing her to commit suicide. From the aforesaid evidence it appears the victim was married to the appellant soon after the marriage and she was gifted with a son. After the birth, the husband Partha Pal started accusing the victim of immoral character and on being physically assaulted she left her matrimonial home to her father’s residence. Only after a salish, she returned to her matrimonial house along with her son. Four years after her return, on that fateful day as stated in the examination of Partha Pal in his own words “one day at around 8:00 p.m. in the night I saw Pushpa in an indecent condition with Biplab inside the room. On being asked Pushpa admitted everything before me. She told me to send her to her father’s house. So, I took her and kept her in her father’s house. After three months the day before when Pushpa consumed poison, para people caught Pushpa and Biplab red handed. I also scolded her. On the next day she consumed poison and committed suicide. She died on her own. I never tortured her. Police never visited my house for investigation.” 22. So, I took her and kept her in her father’s house. After three months the day before when Pushpa consumed poison, para people caught Pushpa and Biplab red handed. I also scolded her. On the next day she consumed poison and committed suicide. She died on her own. I never tortured her. Police never visited my house for investigation.” 22. From the evidences, I find that till conviction the child was with the father/appellant and there was no physical torture by the appellant from the day victim returned to her matrimonial home i.e. for four years from the day when the victim committed suicide. On the other hand, the amorous relationship between the victim lady and the cousin of the appellant was evident from the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 & P.W. 4. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 24. The appellant shall be released from custody, if not served out, upon executing a bond to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a period of six months in terms of section 437A of the Code of the Criminal Procedure if he was not wanted in any other case. 25. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. Rituparna Dey (Ghosh) as amicus Curiae in disposing the appeal. 26. Copy of the judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 27. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.