Misuse Of Section 498A IPC Has Become Rampant; Mere Fact Of Commission Of Suicide Not Sufficient To Raise Presumption U/S 113A Evidence Act: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court remarked that the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has become rampant.
The Court observed that the mere fact of commission of suicide without corroborative evidence is not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Court was dealing with a criminal appeal preferred against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track by which a man was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 of IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay said, “False implications of persons under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unfettered, would result in misuse of the process of law. Misuse of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and the increasing tendency of implicating husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes have become rampant. Mere fact of commission of suicide itself without corroborative and specific evidence is not sufficient to raise presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.”
Advocate Prabir Kumar Mitra appeared for the appellant/convict while Advocate Anand Keshari appeared for the respondent/State.
In this case, the appellant was convicted under Sections 498A, 304B, and 306 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A complaint was filed by the mother of the deceased victim, stating that her daughter was married to the appellant in 2001, satisfying the dowry demand of Rs. 40,000/-. The victim gave birth to a girl child after a year and she was unnecessarily coerced to obtain money from the complainant. During the lifetime of her husband, the complainant ably provided money, however, failed to meet the demands after her husband’s demise. This resulted into physical and mental torture upon the victim by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law.
In 2007, the victim was admitted in hospital in a serious condition but the complainant and her son learnt that she was admitted in the hospital in dead condition. It was revealed that the victim committed suicide by hanging early in the morning in 2007, owing to the torture by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law. The complainant learnt from a reliable source that her daughter wrote a suicidal note which was concealed from them. Based on this, a complaint was filed and charges were framed against the appellant. As the appellant was convicted, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “… in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there had to be a proximate and imminent act of instigation or incitement to attract the offence of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case apart from suspicion, the overt act of the appellant to have tortured the victim on demand of dowry could not be established.”
The Court noted that the evidence of the mother and the brother of the victim was not corroborated by other witnesses who knew the appellant and the victim as a married couple and witnessed their regular activities.
“None of them narrated any adverse incident of prolonged torture for demand of money. The mother and brother of the victim stated the demand to have been initiated after one year of the marriage without substantial evidence to that effect. There can be several reasons and impulses to drive a person to commit suicide. Societal pressure, sensitiveness, intolerance, impatience, lack of logical reasoning and understanding momentary, anger, avarice, jealousy, ego, pride etc with predominate the normal reasoning of human being to fall prey to such vulnerability to recourse to extremities in life being inscrutable and ineffable. Such intangible emotions are enigmatic and uncontrollable”, it added.
The Court said that the course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not reveal the circumstances coercing the victim to commit suicide being compelled by any imminent, proximate reason of dowry demand for which the victim had no other option but to self-immolate.
“The general and casual remarks of the mother and the brother that the victim was subjected to torture for demand of money cannot be acceptable devoid of specific and deliberate act on the part of the appellant to assault the victim for demand of money either to a continuous or an immediate period to have instigated or abetted the victim to commit suicide”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant.
Cause Title- Goutam Dey v. The State of West Bengal
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Prabir Kumar Mitra and S. Nanda.
Respondent: Advocate Anand Keshari
