Crl.A. No. 16 of 2009. Case: State of Tripura Vs Pradip Debnath. Tripura High Court
| Case Number | Crl.A. No. 16 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P. Dhar, Advocate and For Respondents: D. Bhattacharjee, Advocate |
| Judges | Deepak Gupta, C.J. and S.C. Das, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 164, 232, 313, 313(1)(b), 378; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 2; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 113A, 113B, 138; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 304-B, 304B, 498-A, 498A |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2015 |
| Court | Tripura High Court |
Judgment:
S.C. Das, J., (At Agartala)
1. Dowry is a heinous social evil. An offence of dowry death is a most hated crime. The Legislature has made stringent laws to deal with the devilish acts of dowry by enacting the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and incorporating in the Penal Code too, Section 498A and Section 304B as well as Sections 113A and 113B in the Evidence Act. The menace of dowry still survives. It has become a burning problem of the country. It is not unknown that the greed for dowry, and indeed the dowry system as an institution, is at the root of the offence contemplated in Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC. In the cases of offence relating to woman the role of the Courts assumes significant importance.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1993) 2 SCC 684: 1993 CRI.L.J. 1635 has held that the role of courts, under the circumstances assumes greater importance and it is expected that the courts would deal with such cases in a more realistic manner and not allow the criminals to escape on account of procedural technicalities or insignificant lacunae in the evidence as otherwise the criminals would receive encouragement and the victims of crime would be totally discouraged by the crime going unpunished. The courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.
The Supreme Court in the case of Virbhan Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1983 SC 102: 1983 CRI. L.J. 1636 has held that the instances of bride killing are alarmingly on the increase. If society should be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the courts must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment.
It is expected that while dealing with an offence relating to woman a trial Judge shall remain alive and most sensitive and should not be a silent spectator in the course of trial. It is the duty of the trial Judge to see and to find out all material aspects of evidence of a case before the Court. A trial Judge cannot be a mere spectator but should control a criminal trial by actively participating therein to find out the truth.
What also should be borne in mind is that howsoever serious a charge may be against an accused, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused must be proved in accordance with law. The Court of law should not be swayed simply by the gravity of the offence but should consider the case as a whole and should not draw assumption and presumption based on common sense putting apart the facts brought in evidence by the parties.
2. Here is a case of a young married woman Shibani Debnath aged about 26 years, wife of accused-respondent Pradip Debnath, died an unnatural death on receipt of 100 percent burn injuries in the matrimonial home on 26.08.2006 at Poultry Road, Udaipur under R.K. Pur P.S. and respondent Pradip Debnath who is the husband of deceased Shibani and five others were tried for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. ST18(ST/U)2008 and by impugned judgment dated 26.11.2008 the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused-respondent Pradip Debnath from both the charges and hence this appeal is filed under Section 378 of CrPC challenging the judgment of acquittal.
3. We have heard learned counsel, Ms. P. Dhar for the State appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee for accused-respondent Pradip Debnath.
4. Radheshyam Debnath(PW1), father of the victim Shibani Debnath, set the law in motion by filing an FIR in writing on 26.08.2006 before O/C, R.K. Pur P.S. alleging that his fifth daughter Shibani Debnath was given in marriage socially with accused Pradip Debnath of Poultry Road, Udaipur and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and a girl child was also born who was aged two and half years at that time. After about two and half years of marriage, on various pretext Pradip Debnath, husband of Shibani, Sanjit Debnath and Ranjit Debnath, both brothers-in-law of Shibani and Kajal Debnath, Sutapa Debnath and Sefali Debnath, all sisters-in-law of Shibani used to inflict assault and mental torture upon her. She was carrying pregnancy of seven months and the accused persons at that time demanded ` 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) from him through his daughter Shibani. Five/six months ago when he visited the shop of Pradip Debnath, Pradip demanded ` 10,000/- directly to him but he expressed his inability to which Pradip threatened that he knows how to realize the amount. He, however, paid ` 1,500/- to Pradip but torture on Shibani increased. On 22.08.2006, in the morning he went to the house of his daughter and saw the accused persons were about to kill his daughter with dao (a sharp cutting weapon) and on seeing him they refrained from doing so but abused Shibani with filthy words. On 26.08.2006 at about 11.00 AM he heard that his daughter was admitted in Udaipur hospital with burn injuries and thereafter she was taken to G.B. Hospital where she died. He stated that he firmly believed that the accused persons with a view to kill his daughter poured kerosene oil on her body and thereafter put her to fire, as a result she died in G.B. Hospital.
4.1. On the basis of this FIR, R.K. Pur P.S. Case No. 351 of 2006 under Section 498A and 304B of IPC was registered against six accused persons, namely Sri Pradip Debnath, Sri Sanjit Debnath, Ranjit Debnath, Smt. Kajal Debnath, Smt. Sutapa Debnath and Smt. Sefali Debnath and after investigation by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Udaipur namely Pinaki Samanta(PW17) and Ratiranjan Debnath(PW18) charge sheet was laid against all the FIR named accused persons, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and in course of trial learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur on 07.07.2008 framed charges against all those six accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.2. In course of trial, prosecution examined 18(eighteen) witnesses, namely PW1 Sri Radheshyam Debnath, PW2 Smt. Jyoti Debnath, PW3 Sri Mantosh Debnath, PW4 Smt. Puspa Rani Debnath, PW5 Sri Ratan Debnath, PW6 Smt. Nanda Debnath, PW7 Sri Gopal Debnath, PW8 Sri Uttam Kr. Nandi, PW9 Sri Radheshyam Bhowmik, PW10 Sri Narayan Ch. Das, PW11 Sri Uma Pada Debnath, PW12 Sri Shankar Bhattacharjee, PW13 Sri Debjan Chakma, PW14 Sri Shiba Ch. Dey, PW15 Sri Prasad Sur, PW16 Dr. Pranab Choudhury, PW17 Sri Pinaki Samanta, PW18 Sri Ratiranjan Debnath.
4.3. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW1 is the father of the deceased Shibani and is the informant of the case. PW4 is her mother. PWs 2 and 6 are her sisters and PW3 is her brother-in-law. PW5 is a relative of both the accused and the informant. These witnesses, i.e. PWs 1 to 6 are the only material witnesses of the prosecution. PWs 7, 11 and 12 were tendered by the prosecution and neither examined in-chief nor cross-examined. PW8 is a friend of the accused and he stated nothing incriminating against the accused persons. PW9 is a close neighbour of the accused and he was declared hostile by the prosecution and his previous statement recorded by I.O. has been marked as Exbt.B. PW16 is the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Shibani. Other witnesses are formal witnesses and there is nothing material in the evidence of other witnesses.
4.4. Prosecution also proved the FIR, seizure list and seized materials and the postmortem examination report, etc. in course of trial.
4.5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, by order dated 10.09.2008 learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Sujit Debnath, Ranjit Debnath, Kajal Debnath, Sutapa Debnath and Sefali Debnath under Section 232 of CrPC. Thereafter, the accused-respondent Pradip Debnath was examined under Section 313 of CrPC and in his turn the accused declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but a denial of the prosecution case.
4.6. Learned Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial acquitted accused Pradip Debnath from the charges levelled against him and hence this appeal by the State appellant.
5. Learned counsel, Ms. Dhar has submitted that Shibani died an unnatural death on receipt of 100 percent burn injury in the house of the accused-respondents and there is evidence on record that Shibani was subjected to cruelty on demand of ` 10,000/- which could not be fulfilled by the father of the victim i.e. PW1 and while such evidence is on record the trial Court was supposed to punish the accused for the offence charged against him and the acquittal of the accused-respondent has caused great injustice, and therefore, the appellate Court should interfere. She has further submitted that Shibani died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and the trial Court beyond the evidence on record has taken judicial notice of a marriage invitation card produced by the accused persons which was not proved by adducing any evidence and thereby wrongly discarded the prosecution evidence while all the material witnesses stated that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2000 and Shibani died on 26.08.2006, which was within seven years. It is also submitted by Ms. Dhar, learned counsel that the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial