SRI SOMENATH GANGULY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Sri Somenath Ganguly
STATE OF TRIPURA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this criminal petition U/s 482 CrPC, the petitioner is seeking the intervention of this Court for directing further investigation of Agartala Women P.S. Case No.30/13 U/s 498-A/302/34 IPC, which is corresponding to S.T. No.14(WT/A)/2014 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, by a more competent investigating officer.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the death of the deceased, who is the daughter of the petitioner, on 15-4-2013, was not suicidal but a homicide punishable U/s 498-A/302/34 IPC and a complaint to that effect was lodged by her with the Officer-in-Charge of Agartala Women Police Station on the same day. According to the petitioner, there used to be regular altercations between her daughter and her husband due to excessive consumption of alcohol by her husband, and she was gradually subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband at the instigation of the respondent No.5 (her mother-in-law). From their marriage, a male child was born to them, and he is now 10 years old. When their minor son was left in an abandoned condition by the respondent No.3 (husband of the deceased), the petitioner rescued him and gave him a shelter. The minor boy is now pursuing his study at Kolkata with the financial support of the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, West Tripura being Misc. G.C. No.16 of 2013 for his appointment as the guardian of the minor boy is still pending as the respondent No.3 is contesting the case. According to the petitioner, the police conducted investigation in a perfunctory manner and submitted the final report by charge-sheeting the respondent No.3, 4 and 5 U/s 498-A/306/34 IPC and not U/s 498- A/302/34 IPC. The application of the petitioner filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura for further investigation of the case has been rejected without any rhyme or reason. Aggrieved by this, this criminal petition is now filed by the petitioner.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the investigation of the case suffers from the following infirmities, namely, (i) the IO of the case (respondent) No.2 did not even examined the parents of the deceased, the aunt of the deceased; without actually recording their statements, fake statements purportedly U/s 161 CrPC were prepared by her thereby putting words into their mouths; (ii) no attempt was ever made by the respondent No.2 to investigate the allegations of physical and mental torture of the deceased by the respondent No.3, 4 and 5; (iii) though the petitioner had to pay huge amount to the said respondents on different occasions by transferring money to the Bank account of the victim by the petitioner to satisfy their dowry demands, the respondent No.2 did not bother to investigate into this aspect of the matter and (iv) the respondent No.2 also did not seize the video footage of the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased for verification; (v) Though one Suchitra Debnath, wife of late Kalidas Debnath, a resident of 54/2, Karunamoyee, Kolkata-82, is one of the witnesses in whose presence the inquest was conducted, in the list of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, she is referred to as "Suchitra Ganguly" with a view to ensure that she could not located and summoned by the trial court and (vi) the investigation carried on by the respondent No.2 is a sham one, farce and not to explore the truth and conducted in a slip-slot manner with the oblique motive of shielding the culprits. As the investigation is defective and is not likely to result in effective prosecution of the culprits, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a fit case for directing further investigation of the case by a more competent investigating officer.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.