Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Lack of Direct Evidence of Cruelty Leads to Reasonable Doubt: High Court Acquits in Abetment to Suicide Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Calcutta has acquitted Bimal Paul in a long-standing abetment to suicide and cruelty case, citing substantial inconsistencies and lack of direct evidence. The verdict, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Subhendu Samanta, has overturned the earlier conviction by the Sessions Court.

Justice Samanta’s observation highlighted a crucial point in the acquittal: “There is no direct evidence in this case regarding the fact that Padma was inflicted torture whether physically and mentally by the present appellant.” This statement underscores the court’s rationale behind questioning the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

The case, which originated from a complaint filed by Gita Pal, accused Bimal Paul of torturing her daughter Padma, leading to her suicide. However, the High Court noted significant discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of clear proof of cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the IPC.

Justice Samanta also critically examined the applicability of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act in this case. He remarked, “The presumption u/s 113A of Evidence Act is a rebuttable presumption,” indicating that the mere occurrence of suicide within seven years of marriage does not automatically imply abetment by the husband.

The judgment extensively deliberated on the circumstances surrounding the marriage and subsequent events, including the mental state of the victim following the loss of her child. The court observed that these factors, coupled with the family’s socio-economic condition, did not conclusively point towards cruelty or abetment.

Date of Decision: 15 January  2024

Sri Bimal Paul VS State of West Bengal   

 

Similar News