The High Court of Calcutta set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC. The Court held that the trial court's judgment was based on surmise and conjecture due to discrepancies in prosecution evidence. The appeal against the conviction was allowed.
Impugned judgment set aside; appellant released from bail bond.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
CRA 551 of 2017
KAMRUL HUDA
VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
| For the Petitioners |
: Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Adv., Ms. Moumita Pandit, Adv., Ms. Jayashree Patra, Adv., Ms. Sreeparna Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Ritashree Banerjee, Adv., Ms. Dipanwita Das, Adv. |
|---|---|
| For the Opposite Party | : Mr. Saryati Dutta, Adv. |
| Hearing concluded on | : 16thSeptember, 2022 |
| Judgement on | : 19thSeptember, 2022 |
:- Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J
2
3
4
with milk. PW-4 Samsul Hoque stated about Jhagrajhati (quarrel) used to take place between the couple but according to PW-4 it was normal wear and tear of life and nothing else. PW-8 Asir Md. Stated in his evidence in-chief that husband of Jarina used to tell Jarina to bring money from her parents as he wanted to start business. He was the matchmaker so Jarina used to come to his house only to blame him for her miseries, in the hand of her husband. But during crossexamination he stated that he did not tell the police about the alleged demand of money or that Jarina used to come to his house and used to narrate her plight in her matrimonial home. PW-10 is a scribe, Md. Nasiruddin who was the retired member of the B.S.F. He stated that being attracted by the hue and cry in the village he came out of his house, someone was shouting as it thief came. Some persons were shouting and telling about breaking out of fire. He went to the house of Jarina and heard some people saying that Jarina caught fire accidently, some were saying that she committed suicide. According to another group of people she was killed. PW-11 Md. Mainuddin stated that marital life of Kamrul and Jarina was quite normal. PW-12 Noor Md. stated that a meeting was held at Bhakti village as Jarina was tortured in her matrimonial home. In the said meeting it was settled that father of Jarina would give a cow to his daughter and son-in-law who would continue to live separately from the parents of Kamrul. During cross-examination he stated that the settlement or Salish took place in the house of Kamrul Huda which was attended by Panchayat Member and Panchayat Pradhan and the resolution of the meeting was
5
reduced into writing. PW-13 is the Police Officer who held inquest. No other witness was examined. Mr. Chatterjee submits that the offence within the meaning of Section 498A I.P.C. has not been proved beyond doubt.
6
do not find any reason to imbibe myself with the argument of Mr. Dutta to invoke the provision of Section 386 of the Cr.P.C.
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
7
8
allegation is not sufficient to saddle any person with the criminal liability for committing offence under Section 498A of the I.P.C.
(SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the offence under Section 498A IPC beyond doubt.
Whether Section 386 CrPC should be invoked to enhance the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Whether the death of the victim within seven years of marriage permits presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
GOVIND RAMJI JADAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRAReferred¶25
(1990) 4 SCC 718 · Who else cites this
A.K. DEVAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKAReferred¶25
(2015) 1 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kamrul Huda
State of West Bengal
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
