BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 13-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 332 : 2023 INSC 1084
332
CASE DETAILS
BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 1692 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court committed any error 
in passing the impugned judgment holding the husband and in-laws guilty 
for the off ence punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC.
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Dowry demand by husband 
and in-laws – Commission of suicide by victim-wife on account of 
consumption of poison – However, post mortem report silent as to the 
exact cause of death and the viscera report silent as to traces of poison 
being found therein – Eff ect of, on prosecution case:
Held: Considering the overall evidence on record, in the absence of 
any positive viscera report, it could not be said that the prosecution failed 
to establish its case – Absence of detection of poison in the viscera report 
alone need not be treated as a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has 
not died of poison – Intrinsic evidence on record to indicate that the case is 
one of suicide by poison – Deposition of Medical Offi  cer who performed the 
post mortem that odour material with pungent smell found in the stomach – 
Expert opined that in cases of consumption of poison, such kind of pungent 
smell would be found – Furthermore, viscera  was  received by the FSL for 
chemical analysis after fi ve months – Medical Offi  cer admitted that if there 
is any delay in forwarding the viscera sample for chemical examination, the 
poison may not be detected –  In view thereof, the concurrent fi ndings by 
the courts below holding the husband and the in-laws guilty for the off ence 
punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC not interfered with. [Paras 
23, 26, 27, 30, 38, 39]
333
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Mahabir Mandal v. State of Bihar [1972] 3 SCR 639 : (1972) 1 SCC 
748; Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P. [1963] SCR 239 : AIR 1963 
SC 74 – referred to.
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition, Editors 
: K. Mathoharan and Amrit K Patnaik; Ken Kulig MD, in Critical Care 
Secrets (Fourth Edition) 2007 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1692 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court at 
Calcutta in CRA No. 26 of 2018.
Appearances:
Md. Apzal Ansari, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the Appellants.
Avishkar Singhvi, Ms. Astha Sharma, Shreyas Awasthi, Vivek Kumar, 
Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. This appeal is at the instance of four convicts and is directed against 
the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2019 passed by the High Court 
at Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2018, by which the High Court 
dismissed the appeal fi led by the convicts (appellants herein) and thereby 
affi  rmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by 
the Additional sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Katwa, Burdwan, West Bengal 
in the Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2014 holding the appellants guilty for the 
off ence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”). The Trial Court sentenced them to 
suff er rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fi ne of Rs. 5,000/- each 
for the off ence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous 
BUDDHADEB SAHA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF WEST 
BENGAL
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
imprisonment for a period of seven years for the off ence punishable under 
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:-
2. The appellant No.1 (Buddhadeb Saha) is the son of the appellants 
Nos. 2 and 3 resply. The appellant No.4 is the younger brother of the 
appellant No.1. The appellant No.1 was married to the deceased, namely, 
Tuli Shah. The marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2011.
3. On 19th September, 2011, the de facto complainant-Uma Shankar 
Shah (PW-1) lodged an First Information Report at the Ketugram Police 
Station stating that his niece Tuli Shah was married to the appellant No. 1 past 
couple of months. He further stated that as the parents of Tuli Shah passed 
away while she was of a very young age, it is he who took care of Tuli Shah 
and brought her up. At the time of marriage, cash and gold ornaments were 
given to the family of the husband of Tuli Shah. However, within a sho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.