11 July 2025 Dowry death >> Criminal Law  

The High Court of Calcutta has set aside the conviction of Ranjit Mondal (husband) and Sabitri Mondal (mother-in-law) in a case involving the alleged dowry death and murder of Santana Mondal. The appellants, who were found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Lalbagh, in July 2019, for offenses under Sections 498A/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), will now be released from correctional custody unless required in other cases.

The prosecution's case was initiated by Santana Mondal's father, who alleged that his daughter, married to Ranjit Mondal for about two years and having a nine-month-old baby girl, was regularly ill-treated and beaten for dowry. He claimed that on May 4, 2013, she was beaten and sustained injuries, and on the following morning, May 5, 2013, all accused persons killed her by throttling and then hanged her.

However, the High Court, after a thorough review of the evidence, found the prosecution's case to be severely lacking. The defense argued that there was no clear or convincing evidence of dowry demands or cruelty. Crucially, the de-facto complainant (PW1, father of the victim) contradicted himself during cross-examination, stating that the marriage was solemnized "without dowry," despite his initial complaint alleging dowry demands. He also admitted to never filing a complaint with any authority during his daughter's two-year marriage, a period during which alleged torture supposedly occurred.

Key inconsistencies and weaknesses highlighted by the High Court included:

• Contradictory Statements on Dowry Demand: While the victim's parents (PW1, PW5) initially claimed dowry demands, their cross-examination revealed inconsistencies, including inability to specify amounts demanded or given, and an admission that no formal complaint or "salishi" (arbitration) took place during the victim's lifetime. The Investigating Officer (PW22) also confirmed no witness specifically stated dowry demands at the time of marriage.
• Unreliable Witness Testimony: The victim's brother (PW3) claimed his sister called him a day before her death, stating the accused would kill her, but he admitted this was not stated to the police. Other relatives and neighbors (PW2, PW6) relied on hearsay, stating they "heard" about the throttling and hanging from villagers or neighbors.
• Hostile Witnesses and Lack of Eyewitnesses: Several prosecution witnesses, including neighbors (PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW12, PW13), were either declared hostile or stated that the victim had good relations with the accused. Critically, several neighbors (PW7, PW8, PW9, PW13) testified that the victim's husband (Appellant No.1) was absent from the house at the time of the incident, having left early for tuitions. This consistent testimony from unimpeached witnesses significantly undermined the prosecution's claim of his presence and involvement.
• Flawed Autopsy Opinion: The Autopsy Surgeon (PW20) admitted to having no "special degree of autopsy" and not being a "specialist in the field," casting doubt on the "sacrosanct" nature of his opinion regarding homicidal throttling.
• Unconsidered Defense: The court noted that the Trial Court failed to consider the specific and plausible defense offered by the husband (Appellant No.1) under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where he stated he was absent from the house at the time of the incident, giving tuitions. The High Court emphasized that considering such a defense is a "valuable right of an accused."
• Inapplicability of Section 106 Evidence Act: The court ruled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden of proof for facts "especially within the knowledge" of the accused, was not applicable here. This is because the prosecution had failed to establish an "unbroken chain of circumstances" or a "prima facie case" that would warrant such a shift in burden.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution "miserably failed to prove" the appellants' guilt, finding the adduced evidence neither "clinching" nor "conclusive." As a result, the convictions were set aside, and both Ranjit Mondal and Sabitri Mondal are to be released immediately.

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872