Not allowed to face the ordeal of deal as no grave suspicion raised against the respondents: The High of Calcutta
The family matter linked to Section 498A, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, allowed petitioner number 4 &5 to not face the ordeal of trial as there was no grave suspicion from the materials on record. Petitioners 1,2 &3 have to face the trial. The High Court of Calcutta led through the single bench by Mr Justice Tirthankar Ghosh in the case of Sukla Mukherjee & Ors. v. the State of West Bengal [CRR/2441/2012].
The instant case was initiated on the basis of a complaint addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Kanksa Police Station by Bandana Mukherjee. The facts of the case are that the complainant was married to Gobina Mukherjee about 1.5 years back. Complainant alleges that after her marriage she was mentally and physically tortured by her mother-in-law Sukla Mukherjee; Murari Mohan Mukherjee, father-in-law, and Murari Mohan Mukherjee, brother-in-law. However, on 23 July 2011, the aforesaid three accused persons assaulted her and her husband Gobinda Mukherjee. Her brother-in-law that is Manotosh Mukherjee poured kerosene over her body, and she somehow fled away to safety. She also alleged that her sister-in-law, Anjana Bhattacherjee and her husband, Pradip Bhattacherjee were also involved.
The counsel from the petitioners submitted that the peculiarity of the case is that it has been initiated in order to grab the property, the complainant has left out her husband and has implicated the rest of the family members to attend her I’ll terrier purpose.
The court concluded that “I have perused the statement of the complainant as also the other witnesses including the injury report and the statement made therein by the complainant to Dr. Rathin Mukherjee. In the letter of complaint although there are specific role in respect of the physical and mental torture being inflicted upon the complainant by petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but no definite role of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are appearing.”
The High Court of Calcutta directed “In view of the materials appearing in the records of the case which include the complaint, the injury report and the statement of witnesses it can be said that there may be some suspicion against the petitioner No. 4 and 5 but no grave suspicion arise from the aforesaid materials on record. Having regard to the settled principle of law under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner No. 4 and 5 should not be allowed to face the ordeal of trial.”
Further, in so far as the petitioner No. 4 (Pradip Bhattacherjee) and 5 (Anjana Bhattacherjee) are concerned, are hereby quashed.