Misdirected Police Investigation: Calcutta HC Directs CID To Probe Death Of Wife Burnt Alive While Husband Showed Ordeal To Her Relative On Video Call

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday took note of an unfortunate incident involving a husband, who video-called his wife's relative to show the sight of his wife burning to death, instead of intervening or saving her.

In observing that the police had fallen short in their investigation, a single bench of Justice Jay Sengupta transferred the investigation to the CID and held:

It appears that the call went on for at least one minute. If a person catches fire and her husband is in a position to save her, but chooses not to do so and do something else, it has to be explored whether this amounts to contributing to the death of the victim. At least, this circumstance should have inspired the Investigating Officer to find out whether the fire could have also been caused by the husband. These aspects have been given a total go-bye by the Investigating Officer. Non-seizure of relevant articles is another issue that cannot be satisfactorily explained by the Investigating Officer. In fact, he relies on the statement of the accused to provide an explanation. The investigations appears to have been totally misdirected.

The petitioner, who was the uncle of the deceased victim, submitted that although the death of the victim took place after seven years of marriage, only charges under Section 406 and 498A IPC were added to the FIR, and no charges under Section 302 IPC (murder) was brought against the accused.

It was argued that the present case was that of a gruesome murder, where the assailant husband video-called his wife's relative while she was burning to death.

It was argued that neither the mobile phone was seized, nor the relevant witnesses were examined, and the police did not even seize the worn apparel. 

Counsel for the State submitted that the witness statements had been recorded and that the phone could not be seized because the accused was not able to locate the same. 

It was also submitted that there was no material to add charges under IPC 302 against the husband. 

From the statement of the relative who was video-called by the husband, the Court noted that she had pleaded with him to save the victim instead of making the video call, which went on for at least one minute.

The Court enquired whether the husband could be guilty of contributing to his wife's death since he did not save her when he had the chance to do so.

It found that such aspects had been ignored by the State police, whose investigation was  "totally misdirected."

Hence, it allowed the plea and transferred the investigation to the CID. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 33

Case: Nilanjan Mitra v The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 1238 of 2024