National Law Institute University Bhopal Trimester I Project Written Report Subject: Law of Tort I Case: Ram Prasad

Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2012) Decision given by: High Court of Calcutta Submitted by: Regalla Manisha Roll number: 2012BALLB90 Submitted to: Professor Ghayur Alam

Table of Contents
1

Index 1 2 3 4 a. b. 5 6

Article Table of Analysis Concrete Facts Material Facts Principle Arguments: Appellant Respondant Concrete Decision Ratio Decidendi

Page 3 4 12

14 14 15 15

Table of Analysis
2

Citation(s) Appellant(s) Respondant(s) Court Judges Referred Judgements Acts and Rules Cited

I(2012)DMC762, MANU/WB/0058/2012 Ram Prasad Ghosh State of West Bengal High Court of Calcutta Girish Chandra Gupta, Tarun Kumar Gupta Sarathvs.StateofMaharashtraAIR1984SC1622 Indian Penal Code - Section 34 Indian Penal Code - Section 302 Indian Penal Code - Section 304B Indian Penal Code - Section 498A Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313

Concrete Facts
3

1. On 15th August 1996 Sarmila was given in marriage to the appellant Prasenjit according to Hindu rites. A female child was born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that shortly after the marriage the husband and rest of the in-laws started torture upon the victim because the party of the complainant had failed to provide the son-in-law a motor cycle which allegedly was agreed to be given at the time of marriage. It is also alleged that a few days prior to the incident during Manasha Puja the victim had visited her parents house when she disclosed that it was no longer possible for her to reside at the matrimonial home unless the agreed motor cycle was given within 2/4 days. The de facto complainant, father of the deceased, alleged that he personally had accompanied the daughter to the matrimonial home and requested all the inmates to treat his daughter well and that he would arrange the requisite money to buy a motor cycle within a month. But on 25th August 1999 at about 2.30 P.M. he came to learn telephonically that the victim had been hospitalised at Gobindanagar Hospital. Hearing the news the de facto complainant along with his family members rushed to the hospital and found the daughter dead. 2. 23 witnesses were examined. PW 1 is the father of the victim. PW 2 is the uncle. PW 3 is the mother and PW 4 is the grandfather. PW 12 is the uncle. PW 17 is the sister. PW 21 is a neighbour. PW 5 is also a neighbour but he turned hostile. PW 13, it is alleged, had brokered the marriage but he turned hostile. PW 6 was merely tendered. PW 7 Dr. Murmu had admitted the patient in the emergency ward of Gobindanagar Hospital also known as Bankura Sammilini Medical College and Hospital. PW 8 is the ward master. PW 18 Dr. Mukherjee was the Assistant Professor of the Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital. PW 22 Dr. Dey is the Autopsy Surgeon. PW 9 is a nurse. She also is a signatory to the inquest. PW 10 is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He had started an unnatural death case. PW 11 is a SubInspector of Police. He started the Bankura PS Case No.141/1999. PW 14 is a constable who had escorted the dead body. Both PWs.15 and 16 are the local councillors. PW 19 conducted the inquest. PW 20 is another constable who was present at the time of inquest and PW 23 is the IO.
3. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the witnesses

repeated the word 'torture' times without number but no one has given any particulars or any instance of the alleged torture except for the fact that there are allegations that adequate food was not provided to the victim and that the victim was required to lift water from the ground floor. He submitted that these allegations cannot by any stretch of imagination amount to any torture. No one has deposed that there was any discrimination practiced by any of the inmates of the matrimonial home in serving food to the victim. Whatever food was cooked at home the same was shared by everyone. Similarly no witness has deposed that the victim in particular was asked to lift water from the ground floor. He submitted that the witnesses had admitted the fact that the toilet and the bathroom were in the first floor. Everyone in the family used to lift water for his or her use from the ground floor. So did the victim. There is as such no question of lifting of water becoming a specie of torture. Only other instance of torture given by the PW 4 and the PW 17 is with regard to assault. He submitted that these allegations are baseless as would appear from the evidence adduced by those two witnesses. Mr. Roy contended that the
4

witnesses deposed that they had learnt what they had deposed from the statements made by the victim. What amounts to a statement is a question which was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sarathvs.StateofMaharashtra1 reported in wherein Their Lordships dealing with the question as to the value which can be attached to the statements allegedly made by the deceased relied upon a judgement of the Privy Council wherein the following views were expressed:A variety of questions has been mooted in the Indian Courts as to the effect of this section. It has been suggested that the statement must be made after the transaction has taken place, that the person making it must be at any rate near death, that the "circumstances' can only include the acts done when and where the death was caused. Their Lordships are of opinion that the natural meaning of the words used does not convey any of these limitations. The statement may be made before the cause of death has arisen or before the deceased has any reason to anticipate being killed. The circumstances must be circumstances of the transaction: general expression indicating fear or suspicion whether of a particular individual or otherwise and not directly related to the occasion of the death will not be admissible. But statements made by the deceased that he was proceeding to the spot where he was in fact killed, or as to his reasons for so proceeding, or that he was going to meet a particular person, or that he had been invited by such persons to meet him would each of them be circumstances of the transaction, and would be so whether the person was unknown, or was not the person accused. Such a statement might indeed be exculpatory of the person accused." Circumstances of the transaction" is a phrase no doubt that conveys some limitations. It is not as broad as the analogous used in "circumstantial evidence" which includes evidence of all relevant facts. It is on the other hand narrower than " res gestae". Circumstances must have some proximate relation to the actual occurrence: though, as for instance in a case of prolonged poisoning, they may be related to dates at a considerable distance from the date of the actual fatal dose.
4. The second submission advanced by Mr. Roy was that in the absence of any torture or any other

type of cruelty neither the charge under Section 304B I.P.C2 nor the charge under Section 498A I.P.C3 can be sustained.
5. The third submission advanced by Mr. Ray was that the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C 4 is

based merely on the basis of the version of the autopsy surgeon which is belied by the opinion
1

AIR 1984 SC 1622, MANU/SC/0111/1984

Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death
3

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

of the other doctors contemporaneously recorded. 6. His fourth submission was that most of the near relations of the deceased were either serving or retired police personnel. There is clear evidence to show that they influenced the police to prop up a false case against the accused persons. The doctors of the government hospital also appear to have obliged them. He submitted that the case has unfolded a very unfortunate state of affairs and the court should take appropriate measures to curb this unhealthy practice. 7. Lastly he contended that the appeal should be allowed. 8. P.W.1, is the father of the deceased. He deposed with respect to torture during his examinationin-chief as follows:- Initially for 2/3 months my daughter had been behaved well in her matrimonial house but thereafter they started torturing my daughter in various way in order to get the motor cycle. My daughter was also denied proper food. She was even asked to come to my house and bring motor cycle or to take the cost of motor cycle. I came to know all these from my daughter when she used to come to my house. 9. P.W.1 during his cross-examination admitted that the matrimonial house of the deceased was situate at a walking distance from his house. He also admitted that he had a telephone at his house. He also had an ambassador car. He was acquainted with many prominent persons of the town. He also admitted that a 'lagna patra' which is a list containing the articles agreed to be given at the time of marriage was prepared but that 'lagna patra' was not produced. During his cross examination the following suggestion was given: It is not a fact that I did not hand over the list shown Lagna Patra and Dena-Paona to the police as there was no mention about giving any motor cycle, though I had a copy with me. 10. He also admitted during his cross-examination that he did not remember as to how many times he visited his daughter's matrimonial home. Another significant part of his deposition in that regard reads as follows: The other inmates of my house usually did not visit the house of the accused persons. 11. P.W.2 is the uncle of the deceased. According to him the deceased was forced to draw water to the first floor by buckets but he admitted that as regards the incident of torture he was deposing for the first time in Court. He also admitted that his younger brother was in the police service. He admitted that he did not attend the annaprasan ceremony of the daughter of the deceased nor did the party of the complainant hold mamabhat ceremony at their house. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had died of diarrhea. He admitted during his crossexamination that his father was a Police constable. He also admitted that he had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased only once. 12.
4

P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. Her deposition as regards alleged torture is as follows:

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine.

In her matrimonial house she was subjected to torture as we could not give them one motor cycle, she was being assaulted and also denied food in her matrimonial house. We came to know this from my daughter when she narrated the incident at our house. 13. During her cross-examination she admitted that she had been to the matrimonial house of her daughter only twice. She also admitted that the kitchen, privy etc.. were situate at the first floor in the matrimonial house. She admitted that she did not attend the annaprasan ceremony although they were invited. She admitted that no mamabhat ceremony was conducted by them. She also admitted that " Dr. Prasun Pal treated my daughter at the time she was carrying and that was arranged from the house of the accused persons." She also admitted as regards the income of the son-in-law as follow: heard from my daughter that my son-in-law had sufficient income from his business. She denied that " not a fact my daughter was weak. Not a fact that suddenly she suffered from diarrhea and died in the hospital." 14. P.W.4 is the grand father of the deceased. The instances of torture according to him are as follows: She was denied food. She was compelled to draw water on the first floor from ground floor. She was told to suffer the said treatment so long the motor cycle was not given. He admitted during his cross-examination that he had visited the matrimonial house of the deceased twice/thrice since after her marriage. According to him he secretly attended the annaprasan ceremony of the daughter of the deceased. 15. P.W.12 is the another uncle of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased was assaulted in her matrimonial house which he came to know from the deceased herself. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was in service of the Police department. He was unable to furnish even by approximation any date as to when he was told about the alleged torture by the deceased. 16. P.W.17, a younger sister of the deceased deposed as regards the torture and cruelty as follows: Initially my sister Sharmila was treated well for 1,1/2months. Thereafter she was tortured physically and mentally. Her husband used to assault her with the help of a belt. Her mother-in-law did not giver her sufficient food. My said Didi used to tell me about her torture whenever she visited to my father's house. 17. This part of her evidence was contradicted by the I.O as follows: Witness Rina Sarkar alias Dutta did not state to me that her sister was assaulted by her husband with the help of a belt also. 18. P.W.21, a neighbour, deposed that he had been told by the deceased that she had been subjected to torture because the motor cycle was not given. 19. It would appear that the story of torture has its basis in the alleged omission on the part of the party of the complainant to give a motor cycle to the husband of the deceased. The father of the deceased has admitted the fact that a lagna patra was prepared and he had a copy with him
7

which contained the articles agreed to be given during the marriage. The lagna patra was not disclosed which would have unmistakably shown as to the items agreed to be given. That document became important because of the fact that the genesis of the torture is the motor cycle. Whether motor cycle was at all agreed to be given would have been shown by that lagna patra. The defence has denied that any motor cycle was ever agreed to be given or was ever demanded. If the demand for the motor cycle is excluded the raison detre for any torture disappears. The allegations of torture except what was deposed by P.W 17 are all of a general nature. 20. In order to attract the provisions of section 498A and 304B I.P.C the prosecution is required to prove cruelty which has been defined in section 498A as follows: a) Any willful conduct is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 22. It would appear from the discussion made herein above that the prosecution failed to prove any willful conduct on the part of the appellants which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life or limb. It has equally failed to prove any harassment in order to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand. True it is that there is a story of a demand for a motorcycle but that lost its force because the prosecution withheld the best evidence i.e. the lagnapatra which could have thrown light on the alleged demand allegedly made by the appellants. In the absence of any demand the question of any harassment should not arise because no other reason for any harassment has been indicated. 23. In order to prove a charge under Section 304B I.P.C the prosecution is obliged to prove. (a) that there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused. (b) that the deceased died and (c) that the death was under unnatural circumstances within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage. 24. P.w.7 Dr. Murmu who admitted the deceased to the hospital. He deposed during his examination-in-chief as follows: I am posted as M.O (Surgery) in BSMCH on 25.8.1999 I was posted as emergency M.O in the said hospital. On that day, one Sharmila Ghosh, wife of Prasenjit Ghosh of Lalbazar, Bankura, had been admitted to the emergency ward in the said hospital at about 4.30 pm. This is the report I prepared at the time of admission of the said patient. It bears my signature as well (marked ext.2). The following symptoms appear from ext.2 to have been noticed by doctor Murmu " patient on gasping condition, dehydration P.P., pulse feeble and
8

unconsciouness." 25. Dr. Murmu during his cross-examination also deposed inter alia as follows: I examined the said patient. She was suffering from acute dehydration. Dehydration means decrease of fluid in the body. Due to dehydration there is stain on the heart of the patient and consequently there will be pressure on lung. A person may suffer from dehydration if he discharges loose motions on repeated occasions as a result of that dehydration and consequent pressure on heart the patient may fall unconscious. 26. P.W.18 Dr. P.P. Mukherjee, an Assistant Professor, during cross-examination deposed as follows: The provisional diagnosis of the patient was acute gastroenteritis with hypobolemic shock. This was also mentioned in the column of final diagnosis of the Bed Head ticket. In the cause of death in point. No.(A) there was written hypobolemic shock but it was penned through without initials. The doctor of the emergency department first gives an opinion and according to his opinion the patient admitted in the concerned department. One copy of the opinion of the emergency department is given to us. In the paper made by the emergency department the finding of dehydration .... were (objected to). Double plus means moderate dehydration. If the patient suffer from loose motion, or for fasting or starvation or of lying in unconscious condition for about 24 hours in general condition the patient can suffer from dehydration. 27. The document referred to by Dr. Mukherjee during his examination wherein the cause of death was stated to be hypoblemic shock and the same was erased is a document which is on the record marked for identification. This was never tendered in evidence. 28. Only other doctor examined in the case is the autopsy surgeon Dr. Dey (P.W.22) who opined that the death was due to manual strangulation. He however admitted in his cross-examination that " nail marks are expected to be present on the front portion of throttling case of manual strangulation. I did not find any nails mark on the throat of the deceased. Contusion should be there in case of pressure on the throat. But it is not always found. No such mark/contusion was found by me in this case". 29. During his cross-examination he further deposed as follows: The injuries on larynx and traches and fracture of hyoid bone should cause instantaneous death. ( volunteers: it depends upon the strength of the victim.) There is no note in my report about the strength of the victim. There is also no note whether the victim was strong and stout. No symptoms of dehydration is found in case of asphyxial death. There may be bit congestion on throat in case of dehydration. I found half digested food in the stomach of the victim and that was preserved along with the viscera. I did not find any asphyxial hemorrhage in the eyes of the deceased. Both chambers of the heart contained fluid blood. In case of asphyxial sudden death, one chamber of the heart will remain empty. No injury was found on vertebra. In case of food poisoning there is a tendency of vomiting by the patient. He may suffer spasm. If the patient is conscious in case of dehydration he would be restless. Hypo volumia is caused due to dehydration. From the partly food remains in the stomach
9

it appeared that she had consumed food about 2/3 hours back. Not a fact my diagnosis that the patient died due to manual strangulation is wrong. Not a fact the patient died out of negligence of the inexpert staff of the hospital during treatment. Not a fact I gave my opinion falsely to save my staff as I was principal of the hospital. 30. It would appear that Dr. Dey admitted that the symptoms of a manual strangulation were conspicuously absent. The opinion as regards the manual strangulation is also in conflict with the opinion of the other doctors who had attended the victims while she was alive, which we already have noticed. 31. P.W.18 Dr. Mukherjee deposed that she was admitted to the female ward at 4.40 p.m. and she died at 4.50 pm. That is why he did not give any treatment to the patient. It would appear from the written complaint that the written complaint was written in vernacular and the relevant portion thereof when rendered in English would read as follows : 32. Today the 25th August 1999 in the afternoon at 2.30 pm the daughter of the uncle-in-law of my daughter informed over telephone that Sharmila was in the Gobindanagar Hospital. As soon as I got the information I went to the hospital accompanied by my wife and my brother Nihar. After reaching the hospital I came to know that my daughter had died." The written complaint appears to have been lodged at 25th August, 1999 at 23.05 hrs.. The allegation that at 2.30 pm on 25th august 1999 the de facto complainant got the information that the victim was in the Gobindanagar hospital is in conflict with the evidence of the P.W.7 that the victim was hospitalised at 4.30 pm. on 25th August, 1999. If the victim was hospitalised at 4.30 pm. the de facto complainant could not have received the information at 2.30 pm that the victim was in the hospital. P.w.1 admitted during his cross-examination that the distance between his house and the house of the accused is half a kilometer. Nor could the complainant or the members of his family have rushed to the hospital and found the victim dead because by that time the victim was not even hospitalized according to the case of the hospital authority. This ambiguity is clarified by ext. 2 which goes to show unmistakably that the victim was hospitalized on 24th August, 1999 at or after 4 pm. The date and time of admission have both been interpolated to read as 4.30 pm on 25th August 1999. This interpolation explains why the de facto complainant was informed at 2.30 pm on 25th august 1999 that the victim was in the hospital. The victim was in fact in the hospital at 2.30 pm on 25th August,1999. The hospital records originally were that the victim was hospitalised on 24th August, 1999. In order to prop up a false case of murder, the date and time of hospitalisation were both changed. The patient was hospitalised due to diarrhea which also was the diagnosis made by Dr. Murmu. The accused persons during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated that she died of diarrhea. 33. It appears from the evidence on record that P.w.22 gave his opinion that death of Sharmila Ghosh was due to manual strangulation ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. What do you want to say ? Ans. Doctor gave false report. Sharmila died of Diarrhea. Falsification of the ext.2 and the falsification of another record of the hospital which was not ultimately tendered and was left
10

marked for identification clearly go to establish that the death by manual strangulation was an after thought. The First Information Report shows that the sole accused was Prasenjit Ghosh. But subsequently three more accused persons were added in the formal F.I.R by attaching a small chit of paper which is a pointer to show that the written complaint might also have been subsequently substituted involving all the four accused persons on the basis of a planned conspiracy

Material Facts
1. Deceased Sarmila was given in marriage to the appellant Prasenjit. It is alleged that shortly after the marriage the husband and rest of the in-laws started torture upon the victim because the party of the complainant had failed to provide the son-in-law a motor cycle which allegedly was agreed to be given at the time of marriage. On 25th August 1999 at about 2.30 P.M. he came to learn telephonically that the victim had been hospitalised at Gobindanagar Hospital. Hearing the news the de facto complainant along with his family members rushed to the hospital and found the daughter dead. 2. No one has deposed that there was any discrimination practiced by any of the inmates of the matrimonial home in serving food to the victim. Whatever food was cooked at home the same was shared by everyone. Similarly no witness has deposed that the victim in particular was asked to lift water from the ground floor. He submitted that the witnesses had admitted the fact that the toilet and the bathroom were in the first floor. Everyone in the family used to lift water for his or her use from the ground floor. So did the victim. There is as such no question of lifting of water becoming a specie of torture.
11

3. Only other instance of torture given by the PW 4 and the PW 17 is with regard to assault. He submitted that these allegations are baseless as would appear from the evidence adduced by those two witnesses. Mr. Roy contended that the witnesses deposed that they had learnt what they had deposed from the statements made by the victim. 4. Dr. Roy's fourth submission was that most of the near relations of the deceased were either serving or retired police personnel. There is clear evidence to show that they influenced the police to prop up a false case against the accused persons. The doctors of the government hospital also appear to have obliged them. He submitted that the case has unfolded a very unfortunate state of affairs and the court should take appropriate measures to curb this unhealthy practice. Lastly he contended that the appeal should be allowed. 5. The prosecution failed to prove any willful conduct on the part of the appellants which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life or limb. It has equally failed to prove any harassment in order to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand. True it is that there is a story of a demand for a motorcycle but that lost its force because the prosecution withheld the best evidence i.e. the lagnapatra which could have thrown light on the alleged demand allegedly made by the appellants. 6. Dr. Murmu's first statement: patient on gasping condition, dehydration P.P., pulse feeble and unconsciouness." Dr. Murmu's during his cross-examination statement: I examined the said patient. She was suffering from acute dehydration. Dehydration means decrease of fluid in the body. Due to dehydration there is stain on the heart of the patient and consequently there will be pressure on lung. A person may suffer from dehydration if he discharges loose motions on repeated occasions as a result of that dehydration and consequent pressure on heart the patient may fall unconscious. 7. Dr. P.P. Mukherjee, an Assistant Professor, during cross-examination deposed as follows: The provisional diagnosis of the patient was acute gastroenteritis with hypobolemic shock. This was also mentioned in the column of final diagnosis of the Bed Head ticket. In the cause of death in point. No.(A) there was written hypobolemic shock but it was penned through without initials. In the paper made by the emergency department the finding of dehydration .... were (objected to). Double plus means moderate dehydration. If the patient suffer from loose motion, or for fasting or starvation or of lying in unconscious condition for about 24 hours in general condition the patient can suffer from dehydration. 8. The document referred to by Dr. Mukherjee during his examination wherein the cause of death was stated to be hypoblemic shock and the same was erased is a document which is on the record marked for identification. This was never tendered in evidence.
9. Dr. Dey (PW 22) also mentioned that he did not find any symptoms of a sudden death by strangling of throat during cross examination. He found all the signs of dehydration, but none of the marks on the deceased body that should have been there had she been strangled to death were there, all symptoms were 12

only those of dehydration. It would appear that Dr. Dey admitted that the symptoms of a manual

strangulation were conspicuously absent. The opinion as regards the manual strangulation is also in conflict with the opinion of the other doctors who had attended the victims while she was alive, which we already have noticed.
10. P.w.22 gave his opinion that death of Sharmila Ghosh was due to manual strangulation ante-

mortem and homicidal in nature. What do you want to say ? Ans. Doctor gave false report. Sharmila died of Diarrhea. 11. Victim hospitalized on 24th August, 1999 at or after 4 pm. The date and time of admission have both been interpolated to read as 4.30 pm on 25th August 1999. This interpolation explains why the de facto complainant was informed at 2.30 pm on 25th august 1999 that the victim was in the hospital. The victim was in fact in the hospital at 2.30 pm on 25th August,1999. The hospital records originally were that the victim was hospitalised on 24th August, 1999. In order to prop up a false case of murder, the date and time of hospitalisation were both changed. The patient was hospitalised due to diarrhea which also was the diagnosis made by Dr. Murmu. The accused persons during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated that she died of diarrhea.
12. The First Information Report shows that the sole accused was Prasenjit Ghosh. But

subsequently three more accused persons were added in the formal F.I.R by attaching a small chit of paper which shows that the written complaint might also have been subsequently substituted involving all the four accused persons on the basis of a planned conspiracy.

Principle Arguments
Appellant: There is no evidence of torture against deceased in her matrimonial home on partof the accused. It has been proved that deceased recieved same amount of food and was expected to do same amount of work as others in the household. Moreover, all the witnesses who claimed that Sharmila had been subjectedto torture in her matrimonial home had never seen it with their own eyes, they had only heard it from either Sharmila or from elsewhere. Secondly they have successfully proved that there is no core evidence to prove that they had demanded a motorbike from the deceased's family. If they had actually made any such demand, it would have been recorded in the 'lagna patra', and the defendants should produce it in court to prove their point, but since they refused to do so, it shows that they do not have concrete evidence that such demands were made by appellants. Thirdly, they have proved that Sharmila's death was not caused by physial assault, but by extreme diorhea. For one, the body of the deceased did not show any of the wounds or marks or symptoms that a body of somebody who was strangled toeath (as the accused had been accused of) should have. Instead, all the medical evidence only serves to prove that
13

Sharmila had died of dehydration due to diorrhea. Lastly, the appellants have also shown how the facts of the case were twisted by the de facto appellants in order to unfairly and unjustly proved Prasenjit Ghosh and his family guilty in court.

Respondant All the witnesses who were asked whether Sharmila had been subjected to torture in her matrimonial home answered in the positive. Sharmila herself had come to her maternal home and complained to her parents about the torture she was undergoing in her matrimonial home. The accused had made demands for a motobike and the de facto appellant's failure to produce it had begun the complaints of torture from Sharmila. The deceased's death had occured within 7 years of matrimony and under suspicious cicumstances with frequent complains of torture under the hand of her matrimonial home from Sharmila's side.

Concrete Decision
Honorable Justice Girish Chandra Gupta: From our above discussion we have no doubt in our mind that neither did the deceased die in unnatural circumstances nor was she murdered. She died of diarrhea. The police, the doctors and the near relations of the deceased including the defacto complainant combined together to prop up a false case of murder. This was a fit case in which we should have directed the learned Registrar General to lodge a written complaint but we refrain from doing so and leave the matter to the Chief Secretary, State of West Bengal We hope and trust that after considering the gravity of the matter he shall take appropriate action against the perjurers who succeeded in obtaining conviction of three innocent. Even if we are wrong in holding that a false case was bolstered up against the accused, the result is bound to be the same because in that event the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts. In the result the appeal is allowed. The appellants are discharged of the bail bonds furnished by them.

Ratio Decidendi
Generally in such cases, the requirements for the accused to be convicted are as follows:
14

(a) that there is a demand of dowry and harassment by the accused. (b) that the deceased died and (c) that the death was under unnatural circumstances within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage. But in a case where defendants are unable to prove that the demand for dowry has been made, or that the death was due to unnatural cause, the accused will not be convicted. Therefore in the appeal case of Ram Prasad Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, the appellant was successful.

15