NOBIR MIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant application under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Dinhata, Couch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 2(v) of 2009 and Sessions Case No. 93 of 2009 arising out of Dinhata P. S. Case No. 65/08 dated 25.02.2008 under Sec. 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code has been assailed. By the judgment and order the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused opposite party of all charges. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such findings the de facto complainant has preferred this application contending inter alias, that the findings of the learned Trial Judge is perverse in as much as he has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the allegation of abatement by the relatives to commit suicide on demand of dowry followed by subsequent torture. It is contended that there are sufficient evidence on record to show that the victim was ill -treated which will be reflected from the individual role played by the accused persons in abetting the victim to commit suicide. From the conduct of the accused persons it will also be evident that immediately after the incident of the accused persons left the house leaving behind the deceased housewife in the house and it is only the adjoining neighbors who recovered the dead body and assisted the complainant party. In fact the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were solely responsible for the tragic death of the victim and ignoring the significance of the evidence of P Ws 1, 2, 5 and 7 regarding cruelty and torture on demand of dowry the learned Judge has acquitted them. It is also argued that the latches of the investigating officer ought to have been ignored by the learned Trial Judge. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is not the outcome of any application of judicial mind and proper appreciation of the evidence on record leading to miscarriage of justice and therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside. In support of such contention the learned lawyer for the Petitioner has referred to and relied upon the principles laid down in : AIR 2003 SC 11 (K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. -Vs. - Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors.) and : AIR 2004 SC 5097 (Randhir Singh and Anr. -Vs. - State of Punjab).

(2.) In the case of Randhir Singh and Anr. -Vs. State of Punjab ( : AIR 2004 SC 5097) it has been held, inter alias, that absence of victim's statement before her friend about any harassment by itself is not sufficient to acquit accused when cogent and reliable evidence of relatives proved demand for dowry. In the said case evidence of relatives, more particularly, father and the mother clearly proves demand of dowry and the death occurred during seven years of marriage. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of conviction under Sec. 306 IPC. In the instant case the death occurred about 10 years after marriage and as such the facts and circumstances are not identical though the parents have complained of demand of dowry which was disbelieved by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) In the case of K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. -Vs. - Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors. reported in : AIR 2003 SC 11 the accused was convicted under Sec. 498A of the IPC on charge of forcing deceased wife to part with her land received by her in marriage as "Stridhan" for the purpose of which he concealed her postal mail and such conduct was treated as cruelty which had driven her to commit suicide and the presumption under Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act was raised against him. In the said case the marriage of the deceased did take place on 26.06.1988 while she was forced to commit suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide end busulfan on 22.10.1989. This fact is also not identical with the facts of the present case. However, learned lawyer for the Petitioner has contended that the ratio in those cases should be applicable in the instant case but the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It has been contended in the revisional application that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the testimony of P Ws 1, 2, 5 and 7 regarding the torture inflicted by the accused upon the victim on demand of dowry. Their testimony will certainly prove the charge under Sec. 498A IPC against opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who were responsible for the tragic death of the victim.