Shri.V.Krishna v. The State And ANR.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRA(DB)/7/2024 IA No.CRAN/2/2024 Shri V. Krishna Vs.
The State and another Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Karmakar ... for the State Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobin ... for the private respondent November 11, 2024 [SR] Item no. 4 Re:CRAN/2/2024 1.
This application for leave to appeal has been filed by the father of the deceased, the original complainant, against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2023 in Sessions Case No.91 of 2023 arising out of Pahargaon P.S.Case No.81 of 2013 dated 20.06.2013.
2.
The brief facts relevant in the case are that the victim Dhanalaxmi wife of S.Srinivasan, committed suicide on 15.06.2013. The petitioner was at Campbell bay at the relevant point of time and rushed to Port Blair and received the dead body of his daughter and cremated her. The post-mortem report indicates the death by hanging. No other injuries found in the body of the deceased.
3.
It appears from the evidence that the deceased got married one S. Srinivasan, who was a police recruit on training. The complainant and his wife Joshna Devi stated
before the Magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.P.C that the victim had a love affair with the principal accused S.Srinivasan and were married with the consent of the two families. 4.
Initially, the complainant stated that the accused demanded 200 sq.mtrs of land at Haddo as dowry. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that it is the father of the accused who demanded the land.
5.
Apart from vague and omnibus allegations of torture and pressure on the victim by the S.Srinivasan for the land in question, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the nature, times and instances of torture inflicted on the victim by the accused.
6.
The mother, father, brother and sister of the victim deposed in the Court below have clearly stated that they have never physically met the victim deceased after marriage. The sister of the victim is stated to have been spoken to the victim over phone. The brother of the victim stated that the victim confided in her sister.
Certain half-hearted incoherent statements have been made by the sister of the deceased in deposition, that the victim was under pressure and that the accused would not let the victim venture out of the house. 7.
It was also stated that the accused and the victim moved the residence from time to time. The same, however cannot be ground for the family of the victim or for the victim to visit her family and particularly her sister.
8.
The details or any specific particulars of any torture or abetment to commit suicide are not available at all from the evidence of the witnesses.
9.
The ingredients of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are not available from the evidence on record. The question of section 306 being attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case does not and cannot arise. The ingredients of section 498A of the IPC are also not clearly available from the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution.
10.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment acquitting S.Srinivasan cannot be faulted. 11.
Leave to file appeal is refused.
12.
CRAN/2/2024 stands dismissed and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
13.
The shall be no order as to costs.
( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. ) ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J. )