Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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