Calcutta High Court sets aside conviction of man for cruelty, abetment of wife's suicide after 36 years

The Calcutta High Court recently allowed the appeal filed by a man who was convicted for cruelty to his wife and abetment of her suicide in 1987 [Bimal Paul v. State of West Bengal]..Justice Subhendu Samanta said that if the wife of a poor potter is employed for some work like preparation of soil, that would not amount to torture attracting the offence of abetment of suicide.The Court noted that the deceased woman married into a potter's family, all of whom were putting in manual labour to make earthen pots. "The poverty in the family of the potter may have raised some difference of opinion between their family members. It is true that they used to prepare earthen pot by manual labour. The deceased being member of the family was also employed for preparation of soil. Such fact cannot be said to be torture upon her," the judge said. .The observation was made while setting aside the conviction of one Bimal Paul whose wife committed suicide in April 1985..As per the prosecution case, Paul's deceased wife had become pregnant prior to their marriage. However, the child died within a three months of birth. Thereafter, it was claimed that Paul started ill-treating his wife and would often beat her.The deceased wife's family claimed that she was given food only once a day and that her in-laws abused her. It was further alleged that Paul even stopped sharing his bed with his wife. Such treatment, the complaint stated, compelled the woman to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze. Paul was convicted under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1987.Paul contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record as there were too many contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and torture beyond reasonable doubt..Having considered the facts of the case, the Court noted that there was no direct evidence to show that the appellant inflicted cruelty on his deceased wife. "The facts suggest that there may have been some strained relationship between the appellant and his wife but that does not mean that he inflicted physical and mental torture upon her, which led her to commit suicide."The judge further noted that the initial information about the death of the wife was given to the police by the appellant's family and that the women's family filed the case later on, which the Court said might be "concocted" story. It noted that the prosecution couldn't prove the allegations of cruelty as alleged by the woman's family. With these observations, the Court quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence of five years imprisonment imposed on the appellant. .Advocates Soubhik Mitter, Somnath Mukkopadhyay, Sarayati Datta and Chitrak Biswas appeared for the appellant. Advocates Narayan Prasad Agarwal and Pratick Bose represented the State. .[Read Judgment]