The State v. Abdul Saleem @ Sahil Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRA/1/2024 IA No. CRAN/1/2024 The State Vs Abdul Saleem @ Sahil Kumar Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the State Mr. K.Sabir ... for the respondents November 12, 2024 [AKB] Item No.6
1. By filing an application under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the State has approached this Court for granting leave to prefer an appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal dated 19.10.2023 of the respondent/accused as passed in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 2010 arising out of Sessions Case No. 17 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Andaman, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. By the impugned judgement, learned Trial Court found the present respondent/accused not guilty under Section 306 IPC and thus acquitted him from the said charge under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
2. The State felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal alongwith the aforementioned application seeking leave to prefer the said appeal.
3. For effective adjudication of the matter and for coming to a logical conclusion as to whether the leave should be
granted to the State to prefer such appeal or not, the brief facts leading to initiation of aforementioned Sessions Trial is required to be discussed in a nutshell.
4. On 14.10.2008 one written complaint was lodged by one Shri. Ram Chander with the jurisdictional Station House Officer stating, inter alia, that one of his daughters namely; Shivani Devi had love affairs with one Abdul Salim, the respondent/accused herein and on 04.03.2008 they married each other and started residing separately at Garacharama in a rented accommodation. It has been stated further in the said written complaint that one day the informant got a phone call from his said daughter that his son-in-law is unable to maintain his daughter and his daughter thus requested his father to pay some money to her. It is the further allegation of the de-facto complainant that thereafter the said Shivani Devi was harassed off and on by her husband on account of demand of money and in furtherance of such demand torture both physical and mental was inflicted upon her. It has been stated further in the said written complaint that on the fateful day he got information that his said daughter was ablazed and she was taken to hospital.
5. On the basis of such complaint Pahargoan PS case No. 362 of 2008 dated 14.10.2008 under Section 306 was started. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same Charge Sheet was submitted under Section 306
IPC by the Investigating Officer vide Charge Sheet No. 444 of 2008 dated 04.11.2008.
6. After commitment and transfer the learned Trial Court being the Additional Sessions Judge considered the charge against the accused and on consideration of the entire materials as placed before him, charge under Section 306 IPC was framed.
7. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in all and some documents have been exhibited on their behalf.
8. From the Trial Court Record it reveals that the accused adduced no evidence at all. However, from the trend of cross examination as well as from the answers as given by the accused in course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C it appears that the defense case is based on false implication and clear denial.
9. As discussed supra learned Trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary as adduced by the prosecution witnesses came to a finding that the charge under Section 306 has not been proved and therefore passed the order of acquittal which is impugned before us.
10. In course of his submission learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits before this Court that while passing the impugned order learned Trial Court has failed to visualize that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficient materials are
forthcoming to substantiate that it is none but the respondent/accused who had abetted the suicide of the deceased. Learned Trial Court has overlooked the corroborative piece of the evidence as adduced by the other prosecution witnesses.
11. It is further submitted that the conduct of the respondent/accused after his marriage towards his wife clearly establishes that on account of instigation by the respondent/accused the unfortunate deceased found no other alternative but to commit suicide by putting fire on her person.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is sufficient merit in the instant appeal and thus the leave to prefer appeal as prayed for may be granted.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/accused requests us to go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which has been annexed with his affidavit-in-opposition. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent/accused that learned Trial Court is very much justified in passing impugned judgement and order of acquittal noticing that there is no iota of evidence as against the present accused to bring home the charge under Section 306 of the IPC especially when the none of the prosecution witnesses have stated categorically that it is none but the accused who abetted the deceased Shivani to commit suicide.
14. We have gone through the entire materials as placed before us including the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses. We have given our anxious consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates for the contending parties.
15. On perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses it reveals to us that most of the prosecution witnesses are post occurrence witnesses. It appears to this Court that the prosecution witnesses who are basically the relatives of the deceased, though in their respective examinations in chief stated that there were some matrimonial discord between the accused and the deceased on account of financial stringency followed by the demand of money from her, but none of the said relatives witnesses has stated about any overt act on the part of the accused indicating alleged instigation for commitment of suicide.
16. In course of hearing our attention is drawn to the dying declaration as given by the deceased prior to her death which has been exhibited before the learned Trail Court. From the said dying declaration it appears that on the fateful date a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased over which the accused made an attempt to leave the company of his wife by packing his clothings. He further expressed his intention to start living with his mother. It is the further version of the deceased that she became emotional and threatened the accused that in the
event he leaves, she would commit suicide and actually she did so thereafter.
17. On perusal of the evidence of PW 2 we find practically the same version who is none but the full blood sister of the deceased. It has been stated by PW 2 that on the fateful day when the accused was about to leave the company of his wife Shivani, a quarrel took place and since her sister Shivani failed to restrain her husband, she committed suicide by ablazing herself.
18. As discussed supra none of the other prosecution witnesses had stated anything that during the matrimonial tie between the accused and the deceased there was any instigation on the part of the present respondent/accused to commit suicide.
19. In view of the facts as discussed supra, we thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgement. In our considered view, the view taken by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is perfectly justified.
20. In view of such, we find no merit in the CRAN/1/2024. Accordingly CRAN/1/2024 seeking leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgement and order of acquittal is hereby refused.
21. Consequently CRA/1/2024 is also dismissed,. There shall be, however no order as to costs.
22. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order if applied for may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.) (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)