Failure of placing proper evidence before the Court creates serious doubt on cases, for which the accused is liable to get the benefit of Section-84 of IPC: High Court of Tripura

 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA Crl.A. No. 519 The State of Tripura represented by the Ld. Public Prosecutor High Court of Tripura Agartala West Tripura. V E R S U S Sri Mitan Das S o Sri Sukha Ranjan Das @ Shova. Sri Sukha Ranjan Das @ Shova S o late Upendra Kr. Das. Smt. Rekha Das W o Sri Sukha Ranjan Das @ Shova. Sri Litan Das S o Sri Sukha Ranjan Das @ Shova. Smt. Suparna Das W o Sri Litan Das. All are resident of village Purba Assam Para P.S. Ranirbazar District: West Tripura. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH ….. Respondents. : : For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) Date of hearing and delivery of judgment and order : Whether fit for reporting : Mr. Samrat Ghosh Addl. P.P. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee Advocate. JUDGMENT & ORDERHeard Mr. Samrat Ghosh learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Tripura appellant and Mr. S. Bhattacharjee learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This criminal appeal under Section 378(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge Court No.5 Agartala West Tripura in case No. ST T 1 14 2014. The factual background of the case is that on 30.11.2012 Sri Maheshwar Das had lodged one written ejahar before the O.C of Ranirbazar P.S. alleging inter alia that his daughter Smt. Rita Das deceased herein) was given marriage with Mithun Das @Mitan of Assampara giving all the articles as per his demand. After marriage another amount of Rs.50 000 was given for his business. Inspite of that Mitan Das along with his parents and other family members used to torture his daughter. On the morning of 30.11.2012 at about 7.00am he got information that his daughter was admitted in GBP Hospital due to her illness. Immediately after getting the information he along with others rushed to the GBP Hospital and found his daughter having several bleeding injuries on her head and she was not in a position to speak anything. After a while she was declared dead by the attending doctor. Thus it was alleged in the ejahar that Rita Das was killed by her husband and other family members under conspiracy. The trial court had examined evidence of PW 1 the informant herein marked as Extb.1. The trial court also examined the P.M report marked as Exbt.5 which was not effectively challenged by the defence during the cross examination of PW 12 Dr. Juthika Debbarma. On the basis of the aforesaid ejahar Ranirbazar Police Station FIR No. 612 dt. 30.11.2012 was registered under Sections 498A 304B 34 of IPC against the accused person Sri Mitan Das and other family members. During investigation it was revealed that on 04.07.2012 Rita Das got married with Mithun. At the time of marriage all the articles were given to the Mithun Das but subsequently she was tortured mentally and physically by her husband and other family members demanding more dowries. In the month of September 2012 the father of the deceased gave 50 000 to Mithun Das but the torture upon his daughter increased day by day. Ultimately on 30.11.2012 in the morning the husband of deceased inflicted blow upon her head by an ‘Axe’ resulting to bleeding injuries. It is pertinent to mention here that the ‘Axe’ which was produced during trial and marked as Exbt.MO.1 as per evidence of PW11 Dr. S. Nath no blood stain could be detected in the Exbt.A i.e. the ‘Axe’. Thereafter on the same day she died at GBP Hospital. On completion of investigation being prima facie satisfied about the commission of offence the Investigating Officer registered Ranirbazar P.S. Case No. 113 dt. 30.04.2013 under Sections 498A 304B 34 of IPC against principal accused Sri Mitan Das and under Sections 498A 34 against other four accused persons namely Sukha Ranjan Das Shova Smt. Rekha Das Sri Litan Das and Smt. Suparna Das to face the trial in the Court of Law. Cognizance was taken on the basis of police report and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge considered the materials on record and after hearing both sides framed charges against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A 304B 302 34. In course of trial prosecution had examined 14 witnesses including the informant and the investigating officer. On closure of prosecution evidence for the time being trial was clogged as it was reported that accused Mithun Das was suffering from schizophrenia and was under treatment at Modern Psychiatric Hospital Narshingarh Agartala and in this regard one Board was constituted consisting of three doctors and was certified that Sri Mithun Das is suffering from schizophrenia and he is not fit for face the trial. Subsequently on 07.12.2017 the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. to which each of them claimed themselves as innocent and denied the prosecution case in toto. The learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the prime accused and four other family members from the The appellant herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.05.2019 has preferred this appeal on the following grounds: I) The learned trial court has lead to an affirmative finding in favour of the respondentsand this clearly indicates that the PWs 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 and 9 was the vital witnesses of this case. But the trial court did not considere the evidence of that PWs and arrived at wrong finding and hence liable to be set aside. II) The alleged offence committed on 30.11.2012 and it is settled law that it is not every and any plea of unsoundness of mind that will suffice for attracting Section 84 of IPC in the chapter of general exceptions the standard of proof to be applied shall be of legal insanity and not just medical insanity. The burden of proving that the case comes within the purview of general exception under Section 84 of IPC rests on the III) It was not proved that the accused was suffering from such legal insanity at the time of commission of offence to proof that by reasons of such unsoundness of mind he was incapable of knowing the nature of the Act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Therefore Section 84 of IPC cannot come in to play to the rescue of accused Mithun Das if otherwise his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence is established from the prosecution evidence. The condition precedent for taking plea of any of the general exception of the IPC is that the involvement of the person accused of the offence is either admitted or not denied. From The evidence of PWs 1 2 3 5 and 6 it is proved that the deceased was cruelly treated by all the accused persons on demand of money since after 15 days of her marriage till death and their evidence are consistent to each other. So charge under Section 498A IPC has duly proved. Admittedly the deceased was a married lady at the time of alleged incident. PW 1 Maheswar Das the informant herein deposed that the deceased is his younger daughter and her marriage was solemnized with the accused. PW 2 Rajesh Das PW 5 Gobardhan Das and PW 6 Chanchala Dashave also supported the fact of marriage and it was not disputed by the defence. Thus the first ingredient to constitute an offence of cruelty has been duly established. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent in the present appeal opposing the submission of the learned Addl. P.P. contending that the evidence of aforesaid witnesses are not consistent to each other and merely on the basis of some omnibus statement no charge of cruelty can be established. Now it is the settled principle of law that allegation of cruelty has to be proved with material particulars. Omnibus statement of exercise of cruelty cannot prove the case. Here in the present case also this Court finds that there are certain omnibus statements in the evidence of close relatives of the victim without any material particulars to justify the nature of cruelty exercised upon the victim. Thus on the basis of evidence on records no conclusive findings can be arrived at to establish the charge of cruelty. In the result the accused persons are not found guilty under Section 498A of IPC. In the present case it has been observed that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and was under treatment at Modern Psychiatric Hospital Narshingarh Agartala and to that affect a Board consisting of three doctors of Psychiatric department clearly observed that the accused was suffering from mental disorder and requires further observation as inpatient. But fact remains that prosecution failed to explain as to why the detail information and history of the patient was not supplied to the Board for further observation and to collect the necessary information about the exact period from which point of time he was suffering from mental disorder. It was the duty of the investigating officer to subject the accused for medical examination immediately and place that evidence before the Court but that was not done in the present case. Therefore it creates a serious doubt on the prosecution case for which the accused is liable to get benefit of Section 84 of IPC. In view of above and having regard to the entire evidence and materials on record I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not deserve interference. Accordingly the criminal appeal filed by the State appellant stands dismissed. The Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is affirmed. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed. JUDGE 

Summary: The prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not deserve interference. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court of Tripura before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Amarnath Goud and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Lodh in the matter of The State of Tripura Vs. Sri Mitan Das and Ors [Crl.A. No. 52 of 2019].  The facts of the case were related to a Criminal appeal made against a judicial order passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge dated 06.05.2019. It was reported that Sri Maheshwar Das’s daughter was given to marriage with Mithun Das, and was given all his demanded articles. A sum of Rs 50,000 was also given for his business. Even after fulfilling all the demands, the daughter was tortured by the husband and his family. Further one day Mr. Das’s daughter was hospitalised and when the father along with others reached the hospital, he found his daughter bleeding from multiple injuries and later she was declared dead. It was alleged that the husband and his family killed her under a conspiracy. Therefore, an FIR was lodged against the accused under sections 498A/304B/34 of IPC. It was revealed during the investigation the deceased was tortured mentally and physically every day by the accused and his family and demanded more dowries. Ultimately, the husband inflicted a blow upon her head by an ‘Axe’ resulting in bleeding injuries. The “Axe” was presented before the court but no bloodstain was found.  The matter was later taken to the Court of Sessions. The learned sessions judge considered the materials on record and heard both sides, framed charges against the accused persons for commission of an offence punishable under Section-498A/304B/302/34. Furthermore, it was observed that the accused suffered from schizophrenia and was under treatment at Modern Psychiatric Hospital and according to the psychiatric doctors, the accused was suffering from a mental disorder and required further observation as an inpatient. On this, The Hon’ble Court stated that the detailed history of the patient was failed to be explained by the prosecution. This created a serious doubt on the prosecution case for which, the accused was liable to get the benefit of Section-84 of IPC.  Considering all the submissions, The Hon’ble Court held that “In view of above and having regard to the entire evidence and materials on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not deserve interference. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the State-appellant stands dismissed. The Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge are affirmed.” Click here to read the Judgment