Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted 34 Years Ago By Trial Court For Allegedly Abetting Wife's Suicide

The Calcutta High Court on Friday acquitted a man convicted by the trial court of abetting the suicide of his wife 36 years ago by inflicting cruelty upon her. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt before the Trial Court.

The bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) also found fault with the findings of the Trial Judge who had given his 'personal opinion' regarding the culpability of the husband by stating in the order that he 'thought' that the husband is the main culprit, "who made the life of the victim miserable for dowry or for whatever reason whatsoever".

"Such findings of the learned Judge 'for whatever reason whatsoever' leading to the conviction of a person depriving him of his personal liberty is totally against the principles of natural justice and as such the findings of the Trial Court and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under appeal is thus set aside," the Court remarked.

The case in brief

Essentially, one Protap Singh (convict) had moved the court challenging the order of conviction under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in the year 1988.

It was the prosecution's case the accused persons are three full brothers. Accused/appellant Pratap Singh was the husband of the deceased Ranidevi Singh. The other two accused persons are the in-laws. The conjugal life of the victim was not happy as the deceased was the victim of torture at the hands of the accused persons over inadequate dowry.

Ultimately, she took the fatal step by killing herself by suicide by burning herself in July 1986. 

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the prosecution's case was that the deceased was forced to commit suicide as she was tortured at the hands of the accused persons over inadequate dowry and that they were constantly asking for more dowry, however, the Court observed that no family members of the deceased were examined by the prosecution to prove this fact.

"No family members have come before the Court to support the prosecution case that there was constant demand of dowry. Demand of dowry is made from the family members of the married woman and in order to prove such demand, the prosecution has to bring before the Court the best evidence so as to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt...It is most natural for a victim of cruelty for dowry that she will inform her parents and relatives about such torture and demand of dowry as it is expected that they will pay/meet the said demand. The prosecution thus could not bring the best evidence before the Trial Court."

The Court also observed that from the evidence on record, it was not been proved that the cruelty if any, was of such extent so as to drive the victim to commit suicide nor was there any evidence to prove that such harm was caused to the deceased to meet the willful demand of dowry.

"From the facts and circumstances and evidence on record both oral and documentary it is seen that the prosecution before the learned Sessions Judge clearly failed to prove that the appellant was guilty of inflicting cruelty of such nature upon the victim which left her with no choice but to commit suicide. The prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 498A and also the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There are no ingredients (evidence) to substantiate the charge that the appellant instigated the deceased by inflicting cruelty to such an extent that she was compelled to commit suicide. Neither is there any evidence to prove that the appellant intentionally aided in any manner what so ever leading to the suicide of the deceased."

In view of this, holding that the prosectuion had failed to prove the case agaisnt the accused/husband, the Court disagreed with the conlcusion arrived at by the trial Judge as it noted that the findings of the Trial Judge relating to dowry also was not in accordance with law and was a casual discussion made as per his personal opinion regarding the culpability of the husband.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of all charge and discharged/released from his Bail bond.

Case title - Protap Singh Vs. The State of West Bengal [CRA 518 of 1988]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 314

Click Here To Read/Download Order