Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRA 59 OF 2018

BISHNUPADA PAUL

VS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

For the Appellant : Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Parvej Anam, Adv.

Ms. Puspa Rani Jaiswara, Adv.,

For the State : Ms. Z.N. Khan, Adv.

Md. Kutubuddin, Adv.

Reserved on : 08.04.2026

Judgement on : 25.06.2026

Uploaded on : 25.06.2026

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS :-

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of

conviction dated 14.11.17 and 16.11.17, passed by the Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1

st

Court, Kandi, Murshidabad in sessions Trial

no. 237 of 2009 sentencing the appellant to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for

3 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default to suffer further rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months for the commission of offence punishable under

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Page 2 of 15

Fact of the case

2. The prosecution case was initiated by lodging an FIR before the Officer-in-

Charge Burwan P.S. by the de facto complainant on 05.06.2006 against the

appellant alleging that on 6

th

Ashar of Bengali 1401, his sister since deceased

was married to the youngest son of Late Kanai Paul , Bishnupada Paul

according to the Hindu rites and rituals. On 8

th

April, 2006, at about 6 A.M. he

was informed over telephone that his sister has been murdered by her

husband and other in-laws. It was also alleged that the appellant committed

the murder of his sister and hanged her body with rope and portrayed it as a

case of suicide. On hearing the de facto complainant went with his brother and

216 co-villagers and found his sister lying dead, on the floor and after

reaching they found the mother-in-law and other family members escaped

from the place and came to learn from his nieces who were aged 10 and 7

years respectively that their mother was murdered by strangling and hanged

with rope.

3. Over the said written complaint Burwan P.S. case no. 81/06 started under

Section 498A/306 Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation the

charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and the matter was

transferred after commitment before the Learned Sessions Judge, F.T.C 1

st

Court Kandi, Murshidabad where the charge was framed against the accused

persons under Section 498A/306/34 Indian Penal Code. The content of the

said charge was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial commenced.

The Learned Trial Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case

Page 3 of 15

and evidences adduced before the Court and the submission made before the

Learned Trial Court passed the order of conviction against the present accused

when acquitted the co-accused from all the charges. Being aggrieved thereby

this appeal has been filed.

Submissions

4. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the

deceased died on 7

th

April, 2006 and the complaint was lodged on 5

th

June,

2006 and there was delay of almost 2 months when the intimation was given

on 8

th

April, 2006 without any explanation regarding such inordinate delay in

initiating the process. There are sufficient inconsistencies in the evidences

adduced by the witnesses which manifest that there is possibility of second

inquest as well as a separate complaint. So far mark of injury found over the

dead body there is difference of opinion as stated before the Court when the

inquest report suggest single injury but in the post mortem report no external

injury was mentioned. The co-villagers did not support the case of prosecution

and most of the witnesses were declared hostile. The I.O. was not examined

and P.W. 21 is the second I.O. and P.W. 11 is the third I.O. From the case

diary no order of Magistrate to hold the inquest can be found. Two charge-

sheet were submitted by two different I.O. under the same Section in

connection with the same complaint which itself appears to be suspicious

enough. No Gram Panchayat Member was examined in order to show that

previous complaint or any settlement arrived. The daughters were at their

tender age and from the evidence of the husband it can be found that on the

very next date of the incident they were taken by their uncle and aunt. Only

Page 4 of 15

P.W. 17 and 19 that is the said minor daughters stated about instigation by

aunt whose statement was not recorded under Section 164. The allegations

were levelled against all the accused and after considering the evidence

adduced by the daughters the Learned Court acquitted the other accused

from all the charges and also the husband from the charge under Section 306

IPC but passed the order of conviction under section 498A IPC without

considering the scope and ambit of section 498A IPC .The Learned Advocate

relied upon the decision reported in Balaka Singh and Ors vs The State of

Punjab

1

.The learned advocate prayed for setting aside the order of conviction.

5. The Learned Prosecution on the other hand raises strong objection and

argued that the intimation of death was given not by husband or his family

members as stated by P.W. 13. A previous complaint of 498A was filed which

suggest that there were marital discord between the parties. The delay has

been well explained and the daughters’ witnesses are important who were aged

17 years and 15 years while adducing the evidence to have witnessed the

incident and they were found sitting beside the body of their mother for the

entire night which is evident from the evidenc es adduced by the other

witnesses. Accordingly prayed for dismissal of the criminal appeal.

Analysis

6. Having heard both the Learned Counsel as well as on perusal of the materials

on record and prima facie the moot question appears to be decided is whether

the Learned Trial Court rightly passed the order of conviction against the

present appellant or not. In this case in order to bring whom the charges the

prosecution adduced as many as 21 witnesses. In order to find out the truth it

1

AIR 1975 SC 1962

Page 5 of 15

is necessary to assess the evidences adduced before the Learned Trial Court.

Initially it is found that the allegation though made by the de facto

complainant about murder of his sister the chargesheet was submitted as well

the charge was framed by the Learned Trial Court under Section 498A/306 of

the Indian Penal Code.

7. In the instant case as it is evident from the nature of witnesses adduced that

there are group of witnesses out of 21 witnesses who are family members

supporting the prosecution case ,the neighbours of the appellant not

supporting the prosecution case and according to them the relationship was

cordial between the parties and those witness were declared hostile. The

complaint was lodged by the brother on 5

th

of June, 2006 when on 8

th

of April,

2006 in the morning he was informed about the death of his sister. Nothing

was mentioned in the written complaint as to why after such long delay of

about 2 months such complaint was lodged before the Police Station. He

adduced evidence as P.W. 13 before the Court and his testimony disclose that

he went to Police Station to lodge a complaint that his sister was murdered

but he was compelled to write that his sister committed suicide by hanging.

The complaint which has been exhibited before the Court nowhere it was

mentioned that she committed suicide but it was stated that she was

murdered by strangling and hanging her with rope so apparently sufficient

inconsistencies are found. . From his evidence for the first time it can be

found that though he went to lodge complaint at first to the Police Station he

refused to receive the same and then he sent complain ant to the

Superintendent of Police, Murshidabad, SDPO, Kandi, Human Rights

Page 6 of 15

Commission, Bhabani Bhawan , Alipore, Chief Minister of West Bengal ,

Additional Director of CID and he filed a set of photocopies of those letters

while adducing evidence and marke d exhibit with objection. On perusal of

such photocopies it can be found that the date of letter was mentioned as

18.05.2006 and as an annexure the FIR to Burwan Police Station dated

10.04.2006 was annexed where and also wrote the letter to the Deputy

Inspector General, Special on 5.04.2000 intimating about the torture inflicted

upon her as well as to the women cell. The witness stated that the post

mortem report also clearly manifest that initially strangulation was written

which was pen through and then hanging was incorporated. However, at the

time of examination of the autopsy surgeon Dr. Ashim Kumar Banerjee no

cross-examination to that extent was made and the said Post Mortem Report

was exhibited without objection .This witness admitted of lodging two

complaints .The first one on 8.4.2006 and later on 5.6.2006.He filed the

photocopies of those letters in the court and never handed over the same to

the police. He only wrote the letter to Chief Minister and the rest were written

by uncle but subsequently those letters were not proved by the said uncle and

neither these letters were annexed with his complaint.

8. In the decision of Balaka Singh and ors vs The State of Punjab (supra) as

relied upon by the Learned Advocate of the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court discussed that how the evidences are to be appreciated and the Court

must make attempt to separate grain from chaff. Where grain cannot be

separated from the chaff because the grain and chaff are so inextricably mixed

up and that in the process of separation the court will have to re construct and

Page 7 of 15

absolutely a new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details

presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background

against which they made this observation will not apply.

9. In the present case since the charge under Section 306 IPC was not proved

and the case was not started under Section 302 IPC and no challenge made

against the Order either framing of charge or the order of acquittal from the

charge under section 306 IPC. This court is now therefore confined to the

charge under section 498A IPC in which the order of conviction is passed.

Hence, it is to be decided that when apparently the death was proved to be

suicidal and anti-mortem in nature, whether the deceased took such drastic

decision due to torture inflicted upon her by him or the ingredients to attract

Section 498A was sufficiently assessed. The defacto complainant deposed that

the character of appellant was not good and he had illicit relation with a lady

which was not accepted by his sister and she informed him about such illicit

relation. There was marital discord with regard to such illicit relationship

between the appellant and his sister. P.W. 15 is another brother of the

deceased and from his evidence it can be gathered that after birth of the

children the inmates of matrimonial house of Kalyani used to misbehave with

her which lastly resulted in filling a complaint one case under Section 498A

against the appellant and relatives. Subsequently the said dispute was

amicably settled and his sister went to her matrimonial house. From his cross-

examination it can be gathered that he denied to buy Chumki and Rumki the

daughters of the deceased forcibly from the village after demise of their mother.

He also said that initially the police refused to receive the written complaint

Page 8 of 15

and after many days on several request the FIR was received however failed to

say the person who wrote the FIR .He along with 5/6 persons went to Police

station when second time FIR was lodged in the Police Station. On that day

police did not record his statement but interrogated him in his house during

course of investigation. He did not remember the date when he was

interrogated. He also said about the illicit relation in between the appellant

and the sister-in-law of the deceased Madhobi which he came to learn after

2/3 months of the marriage of his sister.

10. From the evidence of P.W. 17, Rashmoni Pal and P.W. 19, Parboti Pal the

two daughters of the deceased serious allegation can be found as they

witnessed the incident how happened and the role attributed by their father,

Aunt and mother in law of the deceased but the Learned Trial Court after

assessing the credibility of their evidences who were only aged 6/7 years and

10/11 years respectively passed the order of acquittal to all the accused

persons from the charge under section 306 IPC . More so the charge was

framed by the Learned Court considering the statements under section

498A/306/34 IPC and the prosecution did not challenge the said order of

framing of charge or the judgement of acquittal. Hence this Court does not find

it necessary to put much emphasis on their statement which was recorded

after one year of the incident. From her cross-examination it can be found

that on the very next date of death of her mother her maternal uncle and aunt

brought them from Jhillerra to Eguria. So, since after the death of their mother

they were raised by their maternal uncle.

Page 9 of 15

The daughter took the name of one neighbour China who gave water on the

face of her mother who requested the accused person not to assault. She also

deposed that her mother was assaulted 2/3 times in 2/3 hours interval during

the noon time and Madhobi Pal and her grandmother was standing and her

father was assaulting her mother. At the time Madhobi was also abusing her

mother. However said Chaina was not cited as witness.

11. P.W. 1 Mihir Kumar Paul who was interrogated by police was declared

hostile. Before such declaration he said that he was not aware about the

internal relation between the appellant and Kalyani but she did not found any

bad relation between them. P.W. 2 Gadadhar Pal being the neighbour was also

declared hostile as he said that Kalyani had good relation with the inmates of

her matrimonial house and he was not interrogated by police. P.W. 3 Mohan

Bhalla being a neighbour also declared hostile who deposed before being

declared hostile that he did not know how Kalyani died and he also signed in

the inquest report but he did not say anything to Police. P.W. 4 Maheswar Pal

who knew the appellant and his family members and he heard that Kalyani

died by committing suicide and then police came and ask them to sign on a

paper accordingly he signed on the paper in the inquest report. However he did

not see the dead body of the deceased and did not say anything to the

Police.P.W. 7 Bablu Mondal is the co-villager of the accused person and he

said that he did not see how Kalyani died. He did not say anything to police

and his witness was declared hostile.

12. The prosecution case of torture can be found to be corroborated from the

evidence of P.W. 9 Ashok Mondal who deposed that an incident took place 6

Page 10 of 15

to 7 years ago and he knew that the deceased died by hanging with a rope and

he saw the dead body lying on the floor. He did not see misbehaviour with

Kalyani but police did not interrogate me. Bonomali Das P.W. 10 deposed that

he found dead body of Kalyani lying on the floor but did not see misbehaviour

of accused person with Kalyani. He heard Kalyani died by hanging with a rope.

He could not say exactly how the accused persons behaved with the deceased.

During his cross-examination he said he went at the spot only after one or two

minutes but he did not meet with the daughter, and after the incident, he was

interrogated by police, but he cannot say date and time when he was

interrogated. He deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the

incident and only heard about the incident. P.W. 12 Ganesh Chandra Das is a

neighbour of the house of the deceased and the house of his brother was

situated near the house of appellant where he often visited .He deposed that at

the time of marriage parents of the Kalyani gave utensils, furniture, dowry as

per claim of the family members of the accused and after marriage she used to

reside in her matrimonial house. She was subjected to torture physically and

mentally due to dowry and the brother of Kalyani informed the Panchayat

members about the same torture. On 7.4.2006 at night she died and on the

following morning Prallad Mondal the maternal uncle of Kalyani informed them

about the death. He also deposed that Kalyani used to say that her husband

and in-laws assaulted her physically and mentally and for that reason she

died. He further deposed that Kesto, Gour, Dayamoyee encouraged the

appellant, Madhobi mother of Bishnupada to torture her. From his cross-

examination it can be seen that the deceased was their neighbour and she

used to address her as uncle. He visited matrimonial house of Kalyani because

Page 11 of 15

he had relation with Bishnupada and her brother’s houses was situated near

the house of the appellant. He also informed about the illicit relationship of the

appellant with his sister-in-law Madhobi pal who is the wife of Shyamal Pal.

The witness came to learn about such illicit relation after 6 months of marriage

and over this issue there was dispute between them and when Kalyani

protested she was assaulted physically. According to him Kalyani was

murdered by appellant by throttling. This witness gave the age of the two

daughters about 18 years and 1/2 years junior to Chumki means 16 years. He

saw Kalyani lying dead on the floor in the room and she wore saree, blouse

and petticoat. He found sign of thumb pressing on the throat of Kalyani but he

did not see the other injuries. P.W. 8 Probhat Mondal claimed to be a co-

villager of the accused person who corroborates this fact that there was no

good relation in between husband and wife and for that reason Kalyani filed a

criminal case for torture upon her against the accused person. In his cross-

examination he said that he could not remember whether p olice interrogate

him as the incident occurred before 5 years ago. He went to the house of the

appellant around 9.30 to 10 P.M. and he saw the deceased in the adjacent

room of cowshed there was only one door. He did not see any rope in her neck

and did not see any injury and in that room beside Kalyani her two daughters

were present.

13. Out of the said prosecution witnesses rest of the of the witness belong to

either police personnel or the autopsy surgeon. P.W. 11 Broji Gopal Debnath

was posted at Burwan as S.I. of Police on 9.11.2006 when he was entrusted for

re- investigation of Burwan P.S case under Section 498A/306. Prior to him S.I

Page 12 of 15

Ajit Mondal was entrusted to investigate the said case and after being

entrusted this witness examine 18 new witnesses and recorded their

statement. He produced Rashmoni and Parboti Pal of the deceased before the

Magistrate for recording their statement. He also examined Dr. Ashim Banerjee

and recorded his statement and after completion of re-investigation submitted

the charge sheet. From his cross-examination it appears that he did not

enquire about the investigation conducted by his previous I.O. He found that

inquest was done on 08.06.2006 and FIR was lodged on 05.06.2006 . The

inquest was done on the basis of a U.D. case no 12 of 2006 and nothing was

mentioned in the C.D of whose instance said U.D case started. Nothing can be

found from the case diary whether Magistrate requested for holding inquest or

not. He did not find any note in the case diary recording reasons of delay in

filing the FIR. The first I.O. examined 10 witnesses in village Eguria in the

father’s house of the deceased who were resident of village Eguria. He also

examined 5 witnesses in the matrimonial house of the deceased at village

Jhillera. The sketch map was prepared by the previous I.O. and this witness

verified the said rough sketch map. He did not examine Nitai pal and Naren

Pal Whose house were situated near the place of occurrence.

14. P.W. 14 is Dr. Dr. Ashim Banerjee who was posted at Kandi SD Hospital as

Medical Officer on 08.04.2006 and on that day he performed post mortem in

connection with Burwan P.S. UD case no. 12/06 dated 08.04.2006. He found

1 /1½” ligature mark over neck which is 10” long with gap of 2” below left ear.

He did not find evidence of any other external injury. He believed that cause of

death was asphyxia due to hanging and ante mortem in nature and the

Page 13 of 15

manner of causation of injury was suicidal. He proved the post mortem report

which was prepared by him as Exhibit 5. P.W. 21 Ranjit Kumar Biswas was

posted as S.I. on 03.07.2006 when he was endorsed with investigation of

Burwan P.S. Case no. 81 of 2006 dated 05.06.2006 by the O.C. M.M. Haque

.Prior to taking charge of investigation S.I., Ajit Mondal investigated some part

of investigation. He took charge of investigation and tried to arrest the rest

accused person but could not arrest them. Though they surrendered before

the Court. After completion of investigation he submitted the charge sheet no

22/06 dated 29.08.2006 for the offence under Section 498A and 306 IPC

against the accused person. In his cross-examination he deposed that he went

to the house where the victim died but he could not say at what place of the

house the victim died. He did not made any reflection in the C.D that his

investigation the daughter of the victim met him.

15. P.W. 5 Rathin Chakraborty who was posted as ASI of Police on 08.04.2006

when he conducted inquest report of deceased Kalyani Paul. He submitted the

carbon copy of the said report. From his cross-examination it can be found

that he found the dead body wearing printed saree yellow blouse and one

petticoat. He saw the dead body lying on the floor in the cow shed during

investigation he found sign of mark of rope in the throat and one injury in the

left side of the dead body. P.W. 6 Alok Kumar Ghatak posted at Kandi Court

as constable. He brought the dead body of the deceased to morgue of Kandi

Hospital for inquest.

16. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and the incriminating materials that was placed before him and

Page 14 of 15

stated that he was married to the victim but most of the time she used to live

in her mother’s house and he was assaulted and that is why he escaped from

the house after the incident. His brother lives in different place and they said

everything false. The daughters are tutored by the maternal uncle he further

stated that on the day of her mother’s death his uncle and aunt took them to

their house and secretly left the place and took his daughter with them. He

claimed to be innocent.

17. The Learned Trial Court after scanning the evidences was of the opinion that

there was no good relation in between the husband and wife for which a case

was filed by the deceased against her husband and other inmates which was

subsequently settled. Furthermore, there was an allegation of illicit relation

between the appellant with Madhobi and there was dissatisfaction between the

appellant and his wife, and after considering the evidences of the daughters

passing such order of acquittal against the other co-accused and order of

conviction against other co-accused and order of conviction against the

present appellant being the husband under Section 498A.

Conclusion

18. On careful scrutiny of the entire records and the scanning the evidences

though certain contradictory statements and inconsistencies are found those

do not appears to be fatal for the prosecution .It is well established that prior

to the instant complaint in the year 1999 the victim’s elder brother lodged a

complaint Burwan P.S case no 120/99 started under section 498A/34IPC as

she was driven out from the matrimonial house but in the year 2001 . Two

different reasons are assigned by the family members of the accused being the

Page 15 of 15

probable cause of their matrimonial discord which a are an illicit relationship

in between the appellant and his sister in law and birth of two female child but

the deceased died in the matrimonial house. There are witnesses corroborating

the cause of material discord and the same.

19. Therefore summing up , on close scrutiny of the entire facts and

circumstances of the case this Court do not find any reason to interfere with

the observation made by the Learned Court and hence this appeal is liable to

be dismissed .

20. Accordingly, this CRA 59 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. The Judgement and

Order of conviction passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast

Track 1

st

Court, Kandi, Murshidabad in sessions Trial no. 237 of 2009 is

hereby affirmed. Bail bond executed by the Appellant shall stand cancelled.

21. All connected applications are hereby disposed of.

22. Urgent certified copy of the order if applied for be provided to the parties

upon observance of all necessary requirements.

[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]