Citations: Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs State Of West Bengal, 2010 AIR (SC) 512
Date of Judgment: 11/11/2009
Equivalent citations: 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 896, 2010(1) RCR 643
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2091 of 2009
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Petitioner/Appellant: Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu
Defendant/Respondent: State of West Bengal
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Mukundakam Sharma, Hon’ble Justice R.M. Lodha
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34, 107, 109, 306, 498A
Cases Referred:
- Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129
- State of West Bengal Vs Orilal Jaiswal, 1994 AIR 1418
- Kishori Lal Vs State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797
- Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami Vs State of Gujarat (2009) 4 SCC 52
- Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177
Facts:
- In this case, the appellant Amalendu Pal and Dipika (-referred herein as deceased) got married in 1977 and had two sons out of their marriage. Appellant resided in Calcutta, and there he got involved in an extra-marital relationship with Anita. When the appellant demanded to marry Anita, the deceased objected, and consequently the appellant started torturing the deceased.
- As a result of the mental and physical torture subjected by the appellant, she was compelled to finish her life. It was also alleged that she was assaulted by the appellant, Anita, and the appellant’s family before her death.
- When Supriyo Maity (PW2), brother of the deceased, got to know about her sister’s death, he went to the Contai Police Station and lodged an FIR against the accused persons under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the other seven accused persons.
- The Trial Court framed charges against all the accused persons under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and after examining the witnesses the Court convicted the appellant but acquitted the other seven accused. As a result, the appellant was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498-A and eight years along with the fine under Section 306.
- Aggrieved with the conviction order of the Trial Court, the appellant approached the High Court. However, the Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and affirmed the sentence of the appellant. Aggrieved with the decision, the appellant challenged the legality of the order of the Calcutta High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the Calcutta High Court has appropriately upheld the conviction order against the Appellant, making him liable under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the given case?
Contention of Petitioner/Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant made the following contentions:
- There is not sufficient and reliable evidence to prove abetment of suicide caused by the Appellant, and thus the conviction made under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not just. The Calcutta High Court has failed too in appreciating the evidence regarding the offence of Section 306.
- Moreover, the Appellant has not inflicted any torture immediately before the deceased’s death, and thus in the absence of evidence, it cannot be asserted that the Appellant has caused the deceased to commit suicide.
Contention of Defendant/Respondent:
- The counsel for the Respondent supported the conviction order passed by the Trial Court and further upheld by the High Court of Calcutta. The appellant has committed the offence under Section 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, and thus the sentence awarded is appropriate.
Judgement:
The Appeal was allowed Partly.
The conviction of the Appellant under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code for the abetment of suicide of the deceased was set aside, whereas the Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code of 1860.
The bail bond of the appellant was canceled, and he was directed to undergo the remaining sentence period for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The Court, after considering the submission of the parties and oral evidence of witnesses produced, observed that the couple was happy in their marriage until the Appellant became involved in an extra-marital relationship with Anita.
- Concerning the issue relating to Section 306, the Court referred to the cases of State of West Bengal Vs Orilal Jaiswal and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Swami Vs State of Gujarat, where it was held that the facts and circumstances of the case should be taken into consideration to assess the effect of cruelty inducing the victim to suicide. The commission of suicide should be the direct or indirect result of the incitement or provocation meted out on the victim.
- Moreover, the view of the Prosecution regarding the abetment was that the Appellant’s extra-marital relationship with Anita and that bringing her home has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased which is not sustainable as per the facts. Because, the Appellant had brought Anita home three months before the incident of the suicide, thus there can be no link between those two incidents.
- Concerning the issue related to the offence under Section 498-A, the Court referred to the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs the State of Maharashtra, where it was held that the charges under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code are independent of each other. As per the testimonies of the witnesses produced, it is evident that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally was inflicted upon her refusal to accept Appellant’s extra-marital affair with Anita. Thus, the Appellant is liable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
- Thus, the appeal of the Appellant was allowed in part. So far the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 were concerned; the Appellant was acquitted while the Court upheld his conviction concerning the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court in its previous judgments has made it clear that to establish the offence of abetment against a person, all the facts, circumstances of the case, and necessary evidence conforming to the allegation are significant. A mere inference drawn concerning the abetment is not sufficient to hold a person liable for incitement to suicide.
In this case, the prosecution’s story and the facts pointed to establish the abetment of suicide of the deceased under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. The torture meted out on the victim immediately before her death by the Appellant, his family, and his second wife could have been the prosecution case to establish a Case for the abetment of suicide. Thus, the appeal was allowed partly to the Appellant.
Drafted By: Shivani Tiwary, School of Law DAVV.
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 31, 2021 at 12:57 IST