G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL …

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

(U/S- 498A r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act)

Present: Sanskrita Khanikar, A.J.S.

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh

State

- VS -

1. Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath

S/O – Late Jugal Krishna Debnath

2. Sri Swapan Debnath

S/O – Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath

3. Sri Deepak Debnath


4. Sri Pradip Debnath


All are resident of

Duliajan, Anandapara, Near Kalibari

P.O., P.S. Duliajan,

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

Dist. Dibrugarh, Assam

5. Smti. Shanti Debnath @ Roy Bhowmick

D/O Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath

W/O - Sri Nirmal Roy Bhowmick

R/O - Sreepuria

P.O., P.S. & Dist. Tinsukia, Assam

…………………….Accused persons

Advocate for the Prosecution : Learned Smti. Lakshmi Mohan

Advocate for the Defence : Learned Sri A. Saikia

Evidence recorded on : 09/09/2016, 18/10/2016, 23/06/2016,

23/10/2017, 03/12/2019, 20/03/2021

Argument heard on : 30/03/2021

Judgment delivered on : 20/04/2021

J U D G M E N T

1. The factual matrix of the instant case is that on 29-06-2009, a

complaint was filed in the Court of the learned CJM, Dibrugarh by the

complainant Smti. Rupa Debnath. She stated therein that she was

subjected to physical and mental torture since the time of her marriage

by her husband accused Sri Swapan Debnath, her father-in-law Sri

Shankar Krishna Debnath, brothers-in-law accused Sri Shyamal

Debnath, Sri Deepak Debnath and Sri Pradip Debnath and sister- in-law

Smti. Shanti Debnath @ Roy Bhowmick in connection with dowry. The

accused persons used to demand money in the name of dowry and in

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

the process used to continuously harass and threaten her with dire

consequences. They demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, fridge, colour T.V.,

washing machine, motor cycle, dining table set etc. as dowry from her.

On the complainant’s failure to meet these demands, they subjected

her to extreme cruelties. They even neglected to provide her adequate

food, clothes and other basic necessities of life. They told her that she

had to stay and work in their home like a maid servant. They also asked

her to pay them Rs. 2,000/- per month regularly. They also threatened

her that her marriage was performed with Sri Swapan Debnath only for

dowry but as her parents were unable to satisfy their dowry demands,

Sri Swapan Debnath would remarry for securing huge amount of dowry

and would divorce the complainant and send her back home. They also

tried to set her on fire when she failed to prepare lunch within 11 A.M.

They even prohibited her from speaking to her parents. The accused Sri

Swapan Debnath used to kick her out of bed every day at about 4 A.M.

in the morning. They also did not allow her to sleep before 12 P.M. They

used to turn on the pipe gas in the kitchen to such an extent that there

was every possibility of her getting burnt in a fire. Accused Sri Shankar

Krishna Debnath used to misbehave with her and address her with

obscene words. Accused Sri Swapan Debnath often used to come home

late at night in a state of intoxication and used to treat the complainant

with extreme cruelty. Sometimes he did not even return home. On 04-

03-2009, the accused persons Sri Swapan Debnath and Sri Shankar

Krishna Debnath physically assaulted her and snatched away the gold

ornaments given to her at the time of her marriage. All the valuables of

the complainant were kept by them and they prevented her from using

the same. They also obtained her signature on a blank non-judicial

stamp paper and threatened her that if she reported anything to the

police or any other authority, they would kill her and use the said non-

judicial stamp paper as her suicide note. Her parents on being aware of

the ill-treatment meted out to the complainant, apprised the matter at

Duliajan Police Station and accordingly the police of Duliajan P.S.

rescued her therefrom and since then she has been residing at her

parental home. The complainant did not lodge any formal complaint in

the police station for taking necessary action against the aforesaid

accused persons at the relevant time being hopeful that they would

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

realise their fault and would reconcile the matter with her, but to no

effect. On 30-05-2009 at about 3 P.M. accused Smti. Shanti Roy

Bhowmick came to the complainant’s house and abused and

threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, accused Sri Swapan

Debnath also threatened to divorce her and remarry. As such, the

complainant prayed to the learned CJM, Dibrugarh to direct the O/C,

Duliajan P.S. to register a case against the abovementioned accused

persons.

2. Accordingly on 01-07-2009, case was registered as Duliajan P.S.

Case no. 125/2009 under section 498A of Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-

sheet against the accused persons for the offence u/sec 498A of IPC

and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The accused persons stood for trial. Copies of the relevant

documents were furnished to the accused persons as required by

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to

as Cr.P.C.). Upon careful perusal of the materials on record and after

hearing both sides on the point of consideration of charge, a prima

facie case was found u/sec 498A r/w section 34 of the IPC and Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. Accordingly, formal

charges u/sec 498A r/w section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the

accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

4. In support of the case, the prosecution side has examined as

many as 9 witnesses namely Smti. Rupa Debnath, the complainant as

PW-1, Sri Birendra Chandra Debnath as PW-2, Smti. Sipra Debnath as

PW-3, Smti Bidisha Debnath as PW-4, Sri Santa Bhowmick as PW-5, Sri

Pradip Kumar Choudhury as PW-6, Smti Purabi Choudhury as PW-7, Sri

Ranjit Singh as PW-8 and Sri Rajen Saikia as PW-9.

The prosecution has also taken aid of the following exhibits:-

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

The complaint petition has been exhibited as Ext. 1, the

complainant/victim’s statement u/sec 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext. 2, the sketch-

map of the place of occurrence as Ext. 3, the injury report of the

complainant/victim as Ext. 4 and the charge-sheet as Ext. 5.

After recording the prosecution evidence, the statements of the

accused persons were recorded u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence plea is

that of total denial and the accused persons claimed to be innocent.

Defence adduced evidence of one DW namely Smti. Juri Bordoloi.

5. In course of the trial, accused Sri Shyamal Debnath expired

during the trial and accordingly, the case stood abated against him vide

order dated 13-05-2019.

6. I have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the

entire evidence on record.

7. THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

i) Whether the accused being the husband of the complainant wife and

his relatives, since 01-2-2009, committed acts of physical and mental

cruelty on the complainant, followed by demands of dowry and thereby

committed an offence punishable u/sec 498 A r/w section 34 of the IPC?

ii) Whether the accused being the husband of the complainant wife and

his relatives demanded dowry from the complainant and her parents

since 01-02-2009 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/sec 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:

8. PW-1 is the complainant. In her evidence she has mostly

reiterated the allegations in the complaint petition. She has stated that

the accused person Sri Swapan Debnath is her husband, the accused

person Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath is her father-in-law, the accused

persons namely Sri Shyamal Debnath, Sri Dipak Debnath and Sri Pradip

Debnath are her brothers-in-law and the accused person Smti. Shanti

Roy Debnath is her sister-in-law. She stated to have been married to Sri

Swapan Debath on 01-02-2009 and that since then, she started residing

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

at her matrimonial home. About 15 days after her marriage, the

accused persons started verbally abusing with foul language and they

also started beating her on the pretext that she has not brought fridge,

T.V., dining table, motor cycle and Rs. 5,00,000/- cash amount at the

time of her marriage. When PW-1 told them that her parents will not be

able to meet the demands of the accused persons, they started

physically assaulting her. Sometimes they even deprived her of food

and other basic necessities. The accused persons have told her that she

is their servant and that if she wants to continue living with them she

has to work like their servant. The accused persons also demanded Rs.

2,000/- per month from her for upkeep. They told her that she was

married to her husband only for money and that if she could not fulfil

their demands, her husband would divorce her and marry somebody

else. She also deposed that if lunch was not ready by 11 a.m., the

accused persons would torture her by throwing the hot food at her. She

stated that on one occasion they even poured hot oil on her fingers.

She further deposed that her husband used to wake her up at 4 A.M. in

the morning by kicking her and that sometimes he would kick her in

such a manner that she even fell off the bed. She stated that the

accused persons prevented her from speaking to her parents. The

accused persons had told her that she would be allowed to talk to her

parents only if she could fulfil their demands. As per her deposition, the

accused Sri Pradip Debnath would throw the food prepared by her if he

did not like it and also used to slap her for wasting their father’s money.

She stated that she was made to do every sort of household work till

about 12 o’clock midnight. The accused persons would leave the switch

of the kitchen pipe gas on so she would catch fire and burn to death.

She stated that the accused Sri Swapan Debnath often used to come

back home drunk at about 1 P.M. and beat her. She stated that

sometimes he didn’t even return home at all.

She also deposed that the accused Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath used

foul language to address her. On 04-03-2009 at about 10 A.M. as stated

by her, the accused Sri Swapan Debnath and Sri Shankar Krishna

Debnath beat her up and forcibly took away from her all the gold

jewellery and other articles given to her by her parents at the time of

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

her marriage. After taking the marriage articles, the accused persons

forcibly made her sign on a blank non-judicial stamp paper and told her

that if she tried to inform about all this to the police or anyone else,

they would kill her and write her suicide note on the signed stamp

paper.

On 26-05-2009, she informed her parents over the phone that she will

not be able to stay at her matrimonial home any longer as she feared

for her life. On 27-05-2009, her parents informed about the matter at

Duliajan P.S. and accordingly she was rescued therefrom with the help

of Duliajan Police. She did not file any case thereafter thinking that her

husband would realise his mistake and take her back.

On 30-05-2009, as stated by her, the accused Smti. Shanti Debnath @

Roy Bhowmick along with two men came to her parental house and

verbally abused her and her mother. The accused Smti. Shanti Debnath

@ Roy Bhowmick also told them that she would not be taken back to

the matrimonial home if the demands for money and property were not

met and that the accused Sri Swapan Debnath will divorce her and

marry somebody else. The other accused persons also made the same

demands over phone. Subsequently on 29-06-2009, she lodged the

complaint petition.

During her cross-examination, she has stated that she is not aware if

her husband had filed a case for judicial separation being T.S.(M) No.

29/2009. Her mother-in-law expired before her marriage and apart from

her there were no female members at the matrimonial home. Her

sister-in-law was a married lady who stayed in Tinsukia. She denied the

defence suggestion that at the time of the incident her sister-in-law was

not in the place of occurrence. Prior to the instant case, she had not

lodged any F.I.R. by informing the police of the incident. She has also

instituted a maintenance case against her husband. She stated that her

sister-in-law was accompanied to her parental home by one Smti. Juri

Bordoloi. No demand for dowry was made by the accused persons at

the time of fixing of the marriage date. She denied the defence

suggestion that she had forced her husband to stay in a rented

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

accommodation to which he had not agreed. She also denied the

defence suggestion that she had deposed falsely in the Court.

9. PW-2 is the father of the complainant. In his evidence, he has

deposed that the marriage between the accused Sri Swapan Debnath

and the complainant Smti. Rupa Debnath was solemnised on 01-02-

2009. Thereafter, the complainant started living at her matrimonial

home. He has stated that after about 15 days of their marriage, the

accused Sri Swapan Debnath came to his house and claimed that no

good article was given at the time of the marriage and for that reason

he demanded fridge, T.V., washing machine, motor-cycle and a cash

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Accused Sri Swapan Debnath also stated that

incase of failure to meet the demands, the complainant would be sent

back to her parental home. As per his deposition, he went to the

complainant’s matrimonial home and talked to accused Sri Shankar

Krishna Debnath who in turn reiterated his demand for money and the

other articles. During that time the complainant came upto him and in a

tearful state said that they used to harass her daily for money. Then the

accused Sri Swapan Debnath beat her for saying such things.

Thereafter PW-2 deposed that he came back home.

As per the deposition of PW-2, many a times, he used to call his

daughter i.e. the complainant but the accused persons would not let

him talk to the complainant and would instead make the same

demands for money. That is why PW-2 sometimes used to go to

Duliajan in order to visit his daughter i.e. the complainant. He even

deposed to have seen injury marks on her body and on being asked,

the complainant had stated to him that the accused persons did not

even let her eat sometimes and that they have taken away all her gold

ornaments. He further deposed that on 26-05-2009, the complainant

called him sometime during the night and asked him to bring her home

or else the accused persons would kill her. Accordingly, on 27-05-2009

he informed about the matter at Duliajan P.S. and the complainant was

finally rescued by the Duliajan Police and brought back to her own

home. On 30-05-2009, the accused Smti. Shanti Debnath @ Roy

Bhowmick along with a man and a woman came to his house and asked

his daughter i.e. the complainant why she had left her matrimonial

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

home. She also told the complainant to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- and the

other demanded articles to the accused persons and that on her failure

to do so the accused Sri Swapan Debnath would divorce her. He further

stated that accused Sri Swapan Debnath also used to call him and

demand for money. Subsequently, the complainant filed the instant

case.

During his cross-examination, he stated that the marriage between the

complainant and the accused Swapan Debnath was an arranged

marriage. He also stated that during the time of fixing of the marriage,

the accused persons had made no demand for dowry. He stated that he

is not aware if the accused Sri Swapan Debnath has filed any case for

judicial separation against the complainant. The accused Sri Shankar

Krishna Debnath is a retired person and his wife had expired before the

marriage of the complainant and his son. As such, the complainant had

to do most of the household chores at the matrimonial home. Prior to

the lodging of this case, the complainant had neither informed about

the acts of the accused persons to the police nor to any women’s

committee/organisation. He denied the defence suggestion that he had

deposed falsely in the Court as the complainant is his daughter.

10. PW-3 is the mother of the complainant. She has stated in her

evidence that the accused persons are her son-in-law and his relatives.

She has deposed that the marriage between the accused Sri Swapan

Debnath and the complainant Smti. Rupa Debnath was solemnised on

01-02-2009. Thereafter the complainant started living at her

matrimonial home at Duliajan. She has stated that after about 15 days

of their marriage, the accused Sri Swapan Debnath came to her house

and demanded a cash amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He also claimed that

the said monetary amount should have been given at the time of

marriage itself. When she stated that they will not be able to give such

a huge sum of money, the accused Sri Swapan Debnath claimed that

no good article was given at the time of the marriage and for that

reason he demanded fridge, T.V., motor-cycle, dining table etc. Accused

Sri Swapan Debnath also stated that incase of failure to meet the

demands, the complainant would be sent back to her parental home.

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

On the next day itself, PW-3 and her husband i.e. PW-2 went to the

house of the accused persons. But the accused Shankar Krishna

Debnath tried to chase them away from the gate itself. He had also

asked them if they had brought the money or not. At that moment

when the complainant in a tearful state came upto them, the accused

Sri Swapan Debnath started beating her right in front of PW-3 and PW-

2. As per the deposition of PW-3, many a times, she used to call her

daughter i.e. the complainant but the accused persons would not let

her talk to the complainant and would instead make the same demands

for money. PW-3 also stated that sometimes she would go to the house

of the accused persons to visit her daughter i.e. the complainant. Once

while visiting the complainant she noticed that the complainant was not

wearing any of her gold ornaments. On being asked by PW-3, the

complainant replied that all her jewellery had been taken away by the

accused persons. She also deposed to have seen injury marks on the

complainant’s body. PW-3 has also deposed that the complainant had

told her that the accused persons did not even give her food to eat

sometimes. When PW-3 asked the accused persons to give her proper

food, the accused Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath replied that she should

pay Rs. 2000/- as the complainant’s food expenses.

She further deposed that on 26-05-2009, the complainant called her

sometime during the night and asked her to bring her home or else the

accused persons would kill her. Accordingly, on 27-05-2009 she and PW-

2 informed about the matter at Duliajan P.S. and the complainant was

finally rescued by the Duliajan Police and brought back to her own

home. On 30-05-2009, the accused Smti. Shanti Debnath @ Roy

Bhowmick along with a man and a woman came to her house and told

her that she had not come to take away the complainant but only to tell

her to bring Rs. 5,00,000/- and the other demanded articles to the

accused persons and that on her failure to do so the accused Sri

Swapan Debnath would divorce her. She stated that even after all

these, the accused Sri Swapan Debnath also used to call the

complainant and demand for money. He would also threaten her

repeatedly with divorce incase of her failure to meet his demands.

Subsequently, the complainant filed the instant case.

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

During her cross-examination, she stated that the marriage between

the complainant and the accused Sri Swapan Debnath was an arranged

marriage. He also stated that during the time of fixing of the marriage,

the accused persons had made no demand for dowry.

11. PW-4 is the sister of the complainant. In her evidence, she has

stated that the accused persons are the husband, father-in-law,

brothers-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. As per her

deposition, the complainant and the accused Sri Swapan Denbath were

socially married on 05-02-2009 and thereafter the complainant started

living in her matrimonial house at Duliajan. About 15 days after their

marriage, the accused Sri Swapan Debanth came to the complainant’s

parental home and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, a colour T.V., fridge,

washing machine, motorcycle etc. from her family. The complainant’s

parents were quite surprised and stated that they had not made any

such demands before marriage. The accused Sri Swapan Debnath then

stated that no good articles were given at the time of marriage and

threatened to send back the complainant to her parental home if his

demands were not acceded to. The next day, the complainant’s parents

went to her matrimonial house at Duliajan. But the accused persons did

not even let them enter inside and asked them if they had brought the

money and the other items that had been demanded. The accused

persons also told them to provide Rs. 2000/- per month for the upkeep

of the complainant. Later on, the accused Sri Swapan Debnath and Sri

Shankar Krishna Debnath threatened her parents over the phone that if

their demands were not acceded to, the accused Sri Swapan Denbath

would divorce the complainant and marry another woman. In April

month of the same year i.e. 2009, the PW-4 went to the complainant’s

house along with her parents to invite them home for Bihu. Even during

that time, the accused persons were discussing about their demands

and did not allow them to meet the complainant. Then, the accused Sri

Swapan Debnath started beating the complainant in front of her family.

Then the complainant in a state of tears, told her family that the

accused persons did not even give her food to eat sometimes and that

they had taken away all her gold jewellery. PW-4 further stated that she

saw the complainant wearing torn clothes and she also saw injury

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

marks all over her body. She also saw that both her hands had burn

marks on them. Sometime in the same year, the complainant called at

her parental home in a state of tears and pleaded with them to take her

away from her matrimonial home as she could not bear the atrocities of

the accused persons and feared for her life. The very day, the

complainant’s parents informed the matter to the Duliajan police. The

complainant was then rescued by the Duliajan police and she was

handed over to her parents by them. A few days later, the complainant

lodged the instant case against the accused persons. The accused

persons continued to threaten them and demand the same things over

phone even after the complainant came to stay at her parental home.

On 30-05-2009, the complainant’s sister-in-law being the accused Smti.

Shanti Roy Bhowmick along with a woman and a man came to their

home and threatened them by warning that if their demands were not

fulfilled, the accused Sri Swapan Debnath would divorce the

complainant and marry another woman. Her statement was not

recorded by the police.

During her cross-examination, she stated that the complainant’s

mother-in-law had expired before the complainant’s marriage and that

the complainant’s sister was a married woman who stayed at Tinsukia.

After marriage, most of the household chores at the matrimonial house

were done by the complainant. She denied the defence suggestion that

she has deposed falsely in Court as the complainant is her sister.

12. PW-5 has deposed in her evidence that the complainant is her

niece and that the accused persons are the husband, father-in-law,

brothers-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. As per her

deposition, the complainant was socially married to the accused Sri

Swapan Debnath on 01-02-2009 and thereafter she started living at the

matrimonial home at Duliajan. About a month after their marriage, the

PW-5 went to the complainant’s matrimonial home to invite them to her

home. Then the complainant came and told her that the accused

persons had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-, a motorcycle, fridge, washing

machine etc. from her as dowry. PW-5 then tried to convince the

accused persons against such demands but the accused Sri Swapan

Debnath told her that the complainant’s parents are very much capable

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

of fulfilling the demands made by them and also told her that he would

divorce the complainant if his demands were not acceded to. She

stated to have seen injury marks on the complainant’s body. After a

week since her visit to the complainant’s matrimonial home, she called

the accused Sri Swapan Debnath over phone but he just told her that if

his demands were not acceded to, he would divorce the complainant.

She also heard him physically assaulting the complainant while she was

on the phone. On 30-05-2009, PW-5 was at the complainant’s parental

home when the accused Smti. Shanti Roy Bhowmick came along with

two men and threatened the complainant’s family that if their demands

were not acceded to, the accused Sri Swapan Denbath would divorce

the complainant and marry someone else. The PW-5 tried to negotiate

with the accused Smti. Shanti Bhowmick but to no avail. Subsequently,

the complainant lodged the instant case. Her statement was recorded

by the police.

During her cross-examination, she denied the defence suggestion that

she deposed falsely in the Court.

13. PW-6 has deposed in his evidence that the complainant as well

as the accused persons are known to him as they are his neighbours.

The house of the accused persons is at a distance of about 500 to 600

metres from his house. He stated that the accused Sri Swapan Debnath

was the complainant’s husband. He does not know anything about the

incident. He had heard from some neighbours that the complainant had

lodged a case against the accused Sri Swapan Debnath but he had no

idea why such she lodged the instant case.

His cross-examination has been declined by the defence.

14. PW-7 has deposed in her evidence that the complainant as well

as the accused persons are known to her. She stated that the accused

Sri Swapan Debnath and the complainant were married a few years ago

and that she was invited to their marriage. According to her, the

complainant does not stay at her matrimonial home at present. She

does not know where the complainant lives now. She does not know

anything about the incident.

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

During her cross-examination, she stated that the accused persons

used to treat the complainant well.

15. PW-8 has deposed in his evidence that the complainant as well

as the accused persons are known to him. He stated that the

complainant and the accused Sri Swapan Debnath were married but

they did not have a child. According to him, the complainant has been

living separately from her husband since 8 to 9 years. He had never

seen or heard them arguing or having a fight.

During his cross-examination, he stated that since the time of the

accused Sri Swapan Debnath’s marriage, he had not heard of any

arguments in their house.

16. PW-9 being the I.O. of the instant case has stated in his evidence

that on 01-07-2009, he was posted in Duliajan P.S. as Sub-Inspector. On

the same date, he receive a written F.I.R. through the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh and the same was registered as Duliajan

P.S. Case No. 125/2009 u/sec 498A r/w sec 34 of IPC and sec 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant Smti. Rupa Debnath and few

other witnesses were found at the police station. He then recorded their

statements and sent the victim Smti. Rupa Debnath to the Oil India

Medical for her medical examination. Subsequently, her statement

u/sec 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in the Court. He also visited the

place of occurrence and prepared its rough sketch-map. He then

recorded the statements of the witnesses present therein. Thereafter,

he arrested the accused Sri Swapan Debnath and forwarded him to the

Court. The Court then remanded him to judicial custody. In the

meantime, his transfer order was issued. As such, he handed over the

case diary to the O/C of the Duliajan P.S. He proved Exhibit 3 as the

sketch map of the place of occurrence prepared by him by identifying

Exhibit 3(1) as his signature thereon. He proved Exhibit 4 as the

victim’s injury report. He proved Exhibit 5 as the charge-sheet by

identifying Exhibit 5(1) as the signature of Sri Rajib Kumar Saikia

thereon with which he is duly acquainted.

During his cross-examination, he stated that he had recorded the

statements of Smti. Rupa Debnath, Smti. Chitra Debnath, Sri Birendra

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

Chandra Debnath, Smti. Bidisha Debnath, Sri Pradip Choudhury, Sri

Narayan Dey and Smti. Purabi Choudhary. Out of them, Smti. Chitra

Debnath, Sri Birendra Chandra Debnath and Smti. Bidisha Debnath are

the relatives of the complainant. Sri Pradip Choudhury, Sri Narayan Dey

and Smti. Purabi Choudharyhad had stated to him that they had never

witnessed any quarrel or fight between the accused and the

complainant. He also stated that prior to this case, the complainant had

not lodged any F.I.R. against the accused persons.

17. DW-1 has stated in her evidence that the complainant as well as

the accused persons are known to her. She stated that except the

accused Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath, she has known the remaining

accused persons since their childhood as they used to be neighbours.

According to her the complainant and the accused Sri Swapan Denbath

were married on 04-02-2009 and that ever since, she had seen the

complainant being treated quite well by the accused persons. She has

no knowledge of any dowry demands made by the accused persons

from the complainant. The complainant left the matrimonial house on

27-05-2009. Thereafter, she along with the accused Smti. Shanti Roy

Bhowmick went to the complainant’s parental home in order to bring

back the complainant to the matrimonial home. Despite their attempts

to convince the complainant, the complainant refused to return to her

matrimonial home. The complainant’s mother i.e. PW-3 told them that

the complainant would be sent back to the matrimonial home after a

few days but the complainant never returned to the matrimonial home.

She does not know why the complainant did not return to the

matrimonial home.

During her cross-examination, she stated that she is not a relative of

the accused persons but their neighbour. The house of the accused

persons is situated at a distance of about 10 minutes from her house.

She visits their house occasionally. She does not stay in their house and

as such she does not know if any incident as regards the instant case

ever took place in their house. When she along with the accused Smti.

Shanti Roy Bhowmick visited the complainant’s parental house, they

were also accompanied by a driver. She denied the suggestion of the

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

prosecution that she has deposed falsely in the Court in order to save

the accused persons.

18. It appears from the prosecution evidence that the

victim/complainant is the sole direct witness in this case. PWs 2, 3 and

4 are the complainant’s father, mother and sister respectively. They

have mostly reiterated the testimonial version of PW-1 i.e. the

complainant. From the evidence on record, it transpires that the

complainant was married to the accused Sri Swapan Debnath sometime

in the month of February, 2009 and the instant case was instituted in

the month of June, 2009.

19. Coming to the offence u/sec 498 A, IPC, its essence lies in the

Explanation to section 498 A which defines cruelty as follows:

Explanation – For the purposes of this Section, “cruelty” means-

a. Any wilful 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 women where such harassment is with a view

to coercing her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure

by 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.

Thus, it becomes clear that as per Section 498A of the IPC, the term

‘cruelty’ is comprised of two elements. Let us first examine whether

these elements are present in the prosecution case.

20. The first element of the explanation to Section 498 A, IPC is

physical torture, which may drive the wife to commit suicide or cause

grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether physical or

mental). It implies that the situation created by the conduct of the

accused must be such which the accused knows would drive the wife to

commit suicide or would cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb

or health. In the instant case, although the PW-1 has stated in her

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

evidence that acts of physical cruelty like beating and physical assault

were meted out to her, yet such acts cannot be presumed to be of such

nature as to drive her to commit suicide. She has stated about

sustaining burn injury on her fingers when the accused poured hot oil

on her hands. However, it is surprising that in her testimony she has

not stated the name of the particular accused person who caused her

such injury and she has also not stated the particular date on which the

injury was caused. The same allegation has also not been corroborated

by the testimonies of the PWs 2 and 3 being her parents. No medical

evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the fact

that she had infact sustained the said injury. Although PW-4 being the

complainant’s sister testified to have seen burn marks on her sister’s

hands, she did not state the date on which she noticed such injury on

her sister’s person. The PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 deposed that they noticed

injury marks on the complainant’s body. But none of them deposed the

specific date/time on which they noticed such injury on the

complainant’s person. The complainant’s parents and her sister being

the PWs 2, 3 and 4 also could not state on which part(s) of the

complainant’s body they noticed the injuries. PW-5 also did not state

anything specific about the injury marks that she had seen on the

complainant’s body. PW-4 in her evidence stated that she noticed signs

of physical assault on the complainant’s entire body but she could not

state anything regarding the nature of the said injuries. Moreover, the

prosecution has failed to examine the M.O. in the instant case. It, thus,

transpires that there is no medical evidence to support the allegations

of physical torture meted to the complainant. Resultantly, it transpires

that the prosecution case is bereft of first element of the explanation to

Section 498 A, IPC as envisaged in clause (a).

21. The second element of the explanation to Section 498 A, IPC is

harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person

related to her to meet the unlawful demand for property or valuable

security. It implies a situation where the wife is continuously tormented

with demands for dowry, irrespective of the fact whether such unlawful

demand is accompanied by any physical torture. In the instant case,

the complainant has testified that the accused demanded items like

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

fridge, colour T.V., motorcycle, dining table set, Rs. 5,00,000/- other

articles from her. The same version was deposed by the PWs 2, 3, 4 and

5. The complainant deposed that on 04-03-2009, the accused Sri

Swapan Debnath and Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath took away her gold

ornaments and other articles that she was given by her family at the

time of her marriage. She had further deposed that after taking the said

articles from her forcibly, they made her sign on a blank non-judicial

stamp paper and told her that if she tried to inform about all this to the

police or anyone else, they would kill her and prepare her suicide note

on the signed stamp paper. The PWs 2 and 3 in their testimonies have

stated that on one occasion they had visited the matrimonial home of

the complainant to try and negotiate about the demands of the accused

but the accused persons remained adamant about their demands and

accused Sri Swapan Debnath beat the complainant in front of them. But

the same has not been stated by the complainant/PW-1 in her

deposition. This definitely creates a doubt in the mind of the Court, as

this being a material fact should have been stated by the

complainant/PW-1 in her testimony. This suggests the possibility of

improvement/exaggeration in the prosecution version. The PW-4 being

the complainant’s sister had deposed in her testimony that she along

with her parents i.e. PWs 2 and 3 had visited the complainant’s

matrimonial home in the month of April, 2009 and on that day the

accused Sri Swapan Debnath beat the complainant in front of them. It is

surprising how her version differs from that of her parents on such

material particulars of the case. PWs 2 and 3 being the complainant’s

parents had deposed that the accused did not allow the complainant to

communicate with them over phone but again they had stated that due

to the same reason, they sometimes used to visit their daughter in her

matrimonial home. It is indeed difficult to fathom how the accused

persons who behaved so poorly with them and prevented their

daughter from speaking on the phone with them would allow them to

visit her at the matrimonial home. As per the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3

and 4, the complainant on 26-05-2009 had called her parents and

asked them to take her away from the matrimonial home as she

apprehended threat to her life and accordingly, the Duliajan Police after

being informed of the matter by her parents brought the complainant to

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

her parental home. However, no such report from the police of Duliajan

P.S. have been brought on record by the prosecution. PW-9 being the

I.O. of the case during his cross examination categorically stated that

prior to receipt of the complaint on being forwarded by the learned CJM,

Dibrugarh to register a case and investigate the same, no information

was received at Duliajan P.S. from any quarter. It is also not stated by

the I.O. that the complainant was rescued and recovered from the

house of the accused as stated by the complainant and PWs 2, 3 and 4

which belies the prosecution version that the complainant was rescued

and recovered from the house of the accused on being informed about

the plight of the complainant. In such a situation, the whole prosecution

case is shrouded in mystery and the same casts a reflection on the

truthfulness of the prosecution story and creates a doubt on the overall

credibility of the prosecution evidence. Resultantly, it is found that the

second element as envisaged in clause (b) of the explanation to Section

498 A, IPC is also absent in the prosecution case.

22. Moreover, as stated by the PW-2 during his cross-examination,

prior to the lodging of this case, the complainant had neither informed

about the cruelty meted to her by the accused persons to the police nor

to any women’s committee/organisation. It also baffles the mind of the

Court that the complainant was brought from the matrimonial house by

the Duliajan Police on 27-05-2019 but the complaint was lodged by the

complainant on 29-06-2009 i.e. nearly one month later. The

complainant had submitted that she still harboured the hope of

reformation of the accused persons. But after suffering the atrocities in

the matrimonial home as described by her, it is indeed surprising that

she was still willing or hoping to reconcile with the accused.

23. DW-1 who happens to be a neighbour of the accused persons in

no uncertain terms stated that she along with the accused Shanti

Debnath @ Roy Bhowmick who happens to be the sister-in-law of the

complainant visited the complainant’s home during her departure to

bring her back to her husband’s fold but the complainant refused to

oblige. During her cross-examination, the prosecution failed to shake

her credibility in any manner whatsoever and the same uncontroverted

testimony of the DW-1 probablise the defence version of the case that

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

the complainant on her own volition left the matrimonial home for

reasons best known to her.

In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to hold that the

prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused persons

demanded dowry from the complainant and her parents since the time

of marriage of the complainant and thereby committed an offence u/sec

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

24. It is one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that

the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. As is clear from the above discussion, the evidence

on record is quite inadequate to establish the prosecution case and

there is ample scope of reasonable doubt as to the factum of the

occurrence alleged. Situated thus, I am not inclined to hold the accused

persons namely, Sri Swapan Debnath, Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath, Sri

Deepak Debnath and Sri Pradip Debnath and Smti. Shanti Debnath @

Roy Bhowmick guilty of the charges u/sec 498A r/w Section 34, IPC and

section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As such, the points of

determination are answered in the negative in favour of the accused

persons.

ORDER

25. In view of the decision made above, the accused persons,

namely, Sri Swapan Debnath, Sri Shankar Krishna Debnath, Sri Deepak

Debnath and Sri Pradip Debnath and Smti. Shanti Debnath @ Roy

Bhowmick are acquitted of the charges of the offences under section

498A IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and set at liberty forthwith.

Their bail bonds shall remain in force for six months from today in

compliance with section 437-A, Cr.P.C.

The case is disposed of on contest.

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this 20th day of April,

2021 at Dibrugarh.

Typed by: Self

Smti. Sanskrita Khanikar

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Dibrugarh

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

APPENDIX

A. Prosecution witnesses:-

i) Smti. Rupa Debnath, the complainant as PW-1

ii) Sri Birendra Chandra Debnath as PW-2

iii) Smti. Sipra Debnath as PW-3

iv) Smti. Bidisha Debnath as PW-4

v) Sri Santa Bhowmick as PW-5

vi) Sri Pradip Kumar Choudhury as PW-6

vii) Smti. Purabi Choudhury as PW-7

viii) Sri Ranjit Singh as PW-8

ix) Sri Rajen Saikia as PW-9

B. Defence witnesses:-

i) Smti. Juri Bordoloi

C. Prosecution exhibits:-

i) The Ejahar as Exhibit 1

ii) The statement of the informant/victim u/sec 164 Cr.P.C. as

Exhibit 2,

iii) The injury report as Exhibit 3,

iv) The rough sketch map of the place of occurrence as Exhibit 4

v) The charge-sheet as Exhibit 5

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009

D. Defence exhibits: Nil

Smti. Sanskrita Khanikar

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Dibrugarh

of 23

G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL …

Documents

Transcript of G.R.CASE NO. 1140/2009 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL …