2004 (11) TMI 565 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Orders Retrial for Cruelty & Suicide Abetment Case

SATYAJIT BANERJEE & ORS. Versus STATE OF W.B. & ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order for a de novo trial in a case involving allegations of cruel treatment under Section 498A and abetment to ... Whether even if a retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by the HIgh Court, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case? Issues Involved:1. Alleged cruel treatment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2. Abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.3. Acquittal by the trial court and subsequent order for a de novo trial by the High Court.4. Propriety of High Court's direction for retrial and its implications.Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Cruel Treatment under Section 498A IPC:The appellants were accused of subjecting the deceased to cruel treatment, punishable under Section 498A IPC. The prosecution's evidence included testimonies from the deceased's mother and neighbors. The mother testified about the deceased's complaints of physical and mental torture by the accused, linked to her inability to conceive and subsequent medical complications. However, the trial court found this evidence unreliable, noting the absence of corroboration from other witnesses and inconsistencies in the mother's statements.2. Abetment to Suicide under Section 306 IPC:The appellants were also charged with abetting the deceased's suicide, punishable under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution presented a suicide note indicating the deceased's illicit relationship and her guilt over deceiving her husband. The trial court noted the presence of ligature marks and poison in the deceased's body as per the autopsy report. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to establish abetment, citing the unreliable nature of the mother's testimony and the delayed filing of the FIR.3. Acquittal by the Trial Court and Subsequent Order for a De Novo Trial by the High Court:The trial court acquitted the appellants, finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable. The mother of the deceased filed a revision petition, leading the High Court to set aside the acquittal and order a de novo trial. The High Court criticized the trial court for not invoking its powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon additional witnesses and evidence, suggesting that the trial court should have been more proactive in seeking the truth.4. Propriety of High Court's Direction for Retrial and Its Implications:The High Court's directive for a retrial was challenged on the grounds that it indirectly suggested a conviction, contrary to Section 401(3) Cr.P.C., which prohibits converting an acquittal into a conviction in revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's directive for a fresh decision from stage one, along with its observations, could be misinterpreted as a mandate to convict. The Supreme Court emphasized that the retrial should consider the entire evidence on record, including the initial trial's evidence, and should be conducted without any influence from the High Court's observations.Conclusion:The Supreme Court refrained from overturning the High Court's order for a retrial but clarified that the trial judge must base the decision on the entire evidence, both old and new, without being influenced by the High Court's or Supreme Court's observations. The Court highlighted that retrials should be exceptional and not a routine response to acquittals due to insufficient evidence, distinguishing the current case from extraordinary cases like the Best Bakery Case.