Form No. J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present : The Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha And The Hon’ble Justice Anuj Singh C.R.A. 289 of 2018 (Arising out of CRMSPL 37 of 2018) Smt. Mamata Pal (Nitai Chandra Pal, since deceased) Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Appellant :Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, Mr. Sital Samanta. For the State :Dr. Pradip Banerjee, ld. A.P.P., Ms. Shalu Gupta. For the O.P. Nos. 2-5 :Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, ld. Sr. Adv. Ms. Jayashree Patra, Mr. Suprava Dey. Hearing concluded on : 01.07.2026, 08.09.2026 and 15.09.2026 Judgment on : September 15, 2026. Rajasekhar Mantha, J .: 1. The subject appeal is directed against judgment and order of acquittal dated 31st January, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Case No. 01(01) 2015. The accused respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections under Section 498A/34, 304B/34, 302/34 and 306/34 of the IPC. THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim was married to the acquitted accused Satyajit Kar on 10th March, 2010. After marriage, the 2 victim went to live in a marital home with the accused person. On the day after marriage, the victim and the accused/husband did not turn up at the parental house of the victim for the “astamongala” ceremony. The victim was found on the 19th of March, 2010, hanging in her matrimonial house from a ceiling fan of the first floor thereat. 3. The respondents were informed by the brother of the husband over the telephone that the victim was sick and called them home immediately. The original appellant, and his wife, the substituted appellant along with their son and nephew went to the matrimonial house of the deceased and found the victim hanging from a ceiling fan above the bed. The feet were touching the bed. 4. The original appellant, father of the victim lodged a complaint with the Kharagpur local Police Station claiming that the victim was regularly tortured for about 9 days after marriage asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/- as dowry from her matrimonial house. The victim was compelled by the respondents to end her life which she did. The respondents were arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail. 5. The investigation was commenced and completed by PW-12, S.I. Amit Adhikari. Charge sheet was submitted. Charges were framed against the respondents on 26th November, 2015 under the sections already mentioned hereinabove. THE TRIAL AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD: 2 3 6. PW-1 now deceased was Nitai Chandra Paul, the father of the victim. He deposed that he had three children and the victim was the youngest daughter. He further deposed that the marriage between the deceased and the respondent Satyajit Kar was negotiated. In the ‘Lagnapatra’ it was duly recorded that the appellant would give 8 bhoris of gold (1 bhori = 11.66 grams, a motor cycle and furniture. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh was also given in cash by the appellant but was not recorded in the ‘Lagnapatra’. 7. The victim girl, started to reside with her in-laws and husband at the marital house. She wanted to pursue higher studies. The respondents are stated to have objected to her pursuing higher studies at a co-educational institution. He further deposed that there was further demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondents to the appellant. Such demand was communicated by his daughter over the telephone to her mother. The victim did not have a mobile phone of her own and spoke through her husband’s phone. He also deposed that the victim was tortured and beaten up and killed by the respondents and thereafter the body was hung from a ceiling fan. 8. PW-2, Smt. Mamata Pal, was the mother of the victim, the present appellant. She deposed that during marriage and in terms of the agreement between the parties, the appellant’s family gave an almirah, a dressing table and some other furniture as also 8 bhoris of gold, a motor cycle and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. She deposed that the victim spoke to her 4 on a telephone nearly every evening. She deposed that the victim informed her that the respondents demanded a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- and that they objected to her pursuing higher studies. She also deposed that the accused/respondents tortured her. 9. PW-3, Soumitra Paul, was the brother of the victim. He met the victim at the matrimonial house from time to time. He deposed that he had gone to the matrimonial house of the victim to invite the husband and victim and the respondents, to attend the “Astamongala” Puja in their house. Curiously in course of such visit, he has not deposed that the victim did not inform him of any demand from the respondents. None of the respondents demanded any money from him a sum of Rs. 50,000/- or otherwise. 10. PW-5, Rajib Dutta, was the cousin brother of the deceased who heard about the allegations of torture and the killing of the victim by the respondents from PW-1 and PW-2. He did not tell anyone as regards any demand. Even the PW-1 and PW-2 did not inform anyone else outside the family or their neighbors as regards any such demand from the respondents and torture on the victim or the alleged demand of Rs 50, 000 by the accused respondents. 11. PW-4, Namita Roy, was a maid servant in the house of the respondents. She was declared hostile. She denied that any motor cycle was given by the appellants to the respondents in course of marriage. 4 5 She denied anything having stated against the respondents to the Investigating Officer. 12. PW-6 was Pratima De, a cook in the house of the respondents who was also declared hostile. She also denied in cross-examination by the prosecution of having made any allegations against the respondents of any torture by them on the victim. 13. This Court has at the instance of the appellant, considered the statements made under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. recorded by the Investigating Officer of PW-4 and PW-6. Even in such statement, there is only an allegation of teasing the victim by the respondents. In any event the statement is neither admissible nor can be looked into by this Court. 14. PW-8 was Ashis Kar, a cousin of the deceased who visited the house of the victim on the day she was found dead. His evidence on other aspects of the prosecution case is at best hearsay. 15. PW-10, Pulin Behari Ghosal, was the neighbor of the respondents. He was also declared hostile. He was not aware of any torture inflicted on the victim or the demand of Rs 50, 000 by the accused respondents. 16. PW-11 was Dr. Ashok Kumar Pal, who was a PM Doctor. Contrary to what PW-12, the inquest-cum-Investigating Officer deposed, the PM Doctor did not find any injury on the body of the victim except a ligature mark on her neck. ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE COURT: 6 17. This Court has very carefully considered the evidence on record and heard the submissions advanced by Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. It is first argued by Mr. Acharyya that the respondents have not denied or explained any circumstances put forward to them by the Trial Court under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. Placing reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, he has argued that it was incumbent upon the respondents to indicate the circumstances leading the death of the victim. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is within the special knowledge of the respondents. The trial Judge failed to consider the same. 18. He places reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh reported in (2025) 3 SCC (Cri) 542, particularly, paragraph 68 and 86 thereof. 19. This Court firstly notes that the facts of the said Balveer Singh decision (supra), are distinctly different from the facts the instant case. 20. In the Balveer Singh decision (supra), the complainant, father and a relative had heard the shouts and cries of the victim therein in the evening. When such cries subsided subsequently and they left. It was also found that the in-laws of the victim had secretly without informing anyone else, cremated the body of the victim, which the complainant and the witness had seen. It is essentially in this light that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act against the accused. The accused in the said case were obliged to disclose what had 6 7 actually transpired in the privacy of the house leading to the cries and shouts of the victim and the purpose behind cremating her secretly late in the night. Such situation is not available in the facts of this case. The evidence on record has no hue and cry by anyone. The parties are ad idem that the victim had committed suicide. The only issue is whether the same was for demand for dowry and the accused respondents abetted the same. 21. In the facts and circumstances available before this Court in the instant case this Court notes several omissions on the part of the prosecution witnesses. 22. It is curious for this Court to note that only the victim only informed pW 2 of alleged additional demand of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. The said fact was neither informed the police or any outsider. One can, however, understand that this cropped up immediately after marriage and that too within nine days. The family of the appellant may have been considering their options and hoping that the demand would subside. 23. What is more curious, however, is that despite such allegations of torture and demand of Rs.50,000/- extra, the family of the appellant had not chosen to visit their daughter or ascertain the veracity of the demand. The evidence of PW-1 to 5 and PW-8 do not indicate the above. PW-3, Soumitra Pal, the brother of the victim had visited the matrimonial house of the victim but was not informed by the victim of any torture or 8 demand on her. PW-1 to 3 have not indicated that any of the respondents have made any specific demand for additional sum of Rs.50,000/- which they normally would have if there is truth in the allegation of the appellant. 24. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered clear and unequivocal view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand for additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. 25. Even PW-4 and PW-6, who turn hostile, did not mention any demand for dowry or torture on the victim. They were servants who regularly visited the matrimonial house of the victim and the respondents on a regular basis and stayed there for substantial period of time at least twice in a day. The allegation of beating or torture and killing the victim by the appellant and the prosecution witnesses is also belied report of the PM Doctor and his evidence in Court, namely, Dr. Asok Kumar Pal, PW-11. Had there been any physical assault on the victim before hanging, there would definitely have been some injury marks on the body of the victim. No such injury was detected by the PM Doctor. 26. What, therefore, transpired is that the victim was a very emotional person and may have decided to end her life after being prevented from pursuing higher studies at a co-educational institution. CONCLUSION: 8 9 27. In the light of the above, while the normal acrimony to some extent may have occurred between the respondents and the victim, the same cannot be of such grave nature to constitute active abetment of suicide by the victim. The allegations that the victim was killed by the appellant after being brutally tortured and then hung up from a ceiling fan is completely beyond the evidence on record and the circumstances under which the victim had died. 28. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the decision of the Trial Judge acquitting the respondents calls for absolutely no interference. 29. C.R.A. 289 of 2018 arising out of CRMSPL 37 of 2018 fails and is hereby dismissed. 30. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be forthwith sent down to the trial Court for necessary compliance. 31. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) I agree. (Anuj Singh, J.)