When Memory Fails But Allegations Multiply:  Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Husband’s Conviction Under Section 498-A IPC

“Exaggeration, delay, and contradictions defeat the prosecution case – A written complaint is not an encyclopedia, but omission of core allegations cannot be ignored” – In a significant ruling Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution failed to establish charges of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment came in the appeal titled Gouranga Maity v. The State of West Bengal [CRA 643 of 2015], where the trial court had sentenced the appellant to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment for allegedly subjecting his wife to physical and mental cruelty.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, after a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidence, highlighted glaring contradictions, inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and serious doubts about the veracity of the complainant’s testimony, ultimately concluding that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

“Omissions of Core Allegations from FIR Cannot Be Explained Away as Memory Lapses” – Court Rejects Belated Testimony as Afterthought

The de-facto complainant (wife) alleged that she was assaulted by her husband and in-laws on 15 February 2010, with specific claims that the husband struck her with an iron rod on the head, attempted to strangle her with a nylon rope, and denied paternity of their child. However, these serious accusations surfaced only during trial, and were absent from the original complaint filed nearly a month later on 17 March 2010.

The Court noted: “The total omission of the fact that her husband tried to kill her by strangulation with a nylon thread in the written complaint… cannot be ignored as a simple mistake.”

The wife explained these gaps as “memory failure”, but the Court was unconvinced:

“It is difficult to accept that the de-facto complainant, who could lodge 3-4 criminal cases and a matrimonial suit for divorce, failed to include such grave allegations in her written complaint or simply forgot to mention them.”

“Medical Report Contradicts Injury Claims; Evidence Does Not Inspire Confidence” – Court Dissects Evidence of Assault

The medical report prepared by PW-10 (Dr. Hemantika Dey) was riddled with discrepancies. While the complaint alleged bleeding from the head and injury to private parts, no such injuries were clinically confirmed.

The Court recorded:

“The doctor clearly stated that she did not clinically examine the private part... and it was not possible to say whether the bleeding was due to injury or menstruation.”

Adding to the confusion, the carbon copy of the injury report bore the date 15.01.2010, instead of 15.02.2010, raising further doubts about the actual date of the alleged incident. Moreover, no prescriptions were issued, and admission to hospital was not advised, weakening the credibility of the medical corroboration.

“No injury was sustained by her in her head as stated in the written complaint, which was later said to have been inserted wrongly.”

“One Allegation, Multiple Dates – A Story Marred by Inconsistencies” – Court Criticises Shifting Timeline of Alleged Assault

While the written complaint stated the incident occurred on 15 February 2010, the medical report reflected 15 January 2010, and other witnesses spoke of events on 14 February or even 15 March 2010.

The Court remarked:

“There are three dates of occurrence—15.2.2010, 15.1.2010, 14.2.2010 and 15.3.2010... and none can be explained away as typographical mistakes.”

Such chronological confusion, the Court held, struck at the root of the prosecution’s credibility, especially in a case where the entire conviction hinged upon the complainant’s sole testimony.

“A Pattern of Exaggeration, Not a Case of Proven Cruelty” – Court Notes Multiple Complaints, All Resulting in Acquittals

The complainant had filed multiple criminal cases against the husband, including cases of cheating, cruelty, and dowry harassment, all of which had resulted in acquittals. The present complaint, too, was found to be full of vague, embellished, and inconsistent statements.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent caution in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 953, the Court held:

“There has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-A IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta… vague and generalized allegations must be scrutinized.”

In another cited case, Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 INSC 369, the Supreme Court had quashed an FIR lodged after 11 months of leaving the matrimonial home, holding the delay and lack of specific allegations fatal to the prosecution. Though the present case was an appeal against conviction, the High Court applied the same reasoning to underline the misuse of criminal law to harass the spouse.

“In Criminal Law, the Benefit of Doubt Is Not a Concession – It’s a Constitutional Mandate” – Conviction Set Aside, Appellant Acquitted

After exhaustively evaluating the testimonies of 12 prosecution witnesses, medical evidence, and surrounding circumstances, the Court concluded that the prosecution had utterly failed to discharge its burden of proof under criminal law.

“The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the judgment and order of conviction is liable to be set aside.”

The Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the trial court’s conviction under Section 498-A IPC, and acquitted the appellant-husband, ordering the disposal of all connected applications.

This judgment serves as a judicial reiteration that vague, inconsistent, and delayed allegations cannot form the basis of criminal conviction, especially when serious charges like cruelty, assault, and attempted murder are made without substantive proof.

“Judicial scrutiny cannot be replaced with blind acceptance – the law must protect the innocent as much as it punishes the guilty”

Date of Decision: 27 October 2025