Failure To Exhibit Post-Mortem Report Fatal To Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction In Dowry Death Case

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction recorded by the trial court for offences relating to cruelty and abetment of suicide.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed that “in criminal jurisprudence, particularly where the cause of death is central to the determination of guilt, strict adherence to rules of proof is essential. The failure to exhibit the post-mortem report, without any justification, amounts to a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. Such omission cannot be treated as a mere technical defect; rather, it goes to the root of the matter”.

Background

The prosecution's case originated from a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased woman, alleging that after her marriage, she was subjected to persistent cruelty and harassment by her husband and other family members in connection with alleged dowry demands.

It was alleged that despite providing certain articles and cash at the time of marriage, additional financial demands were subsequently made by the accused persons. According to the prosecution, the deceased was subjected to mental and physical harassment when those demands were not met.

The complainant further alleged that the deceased had repeatedly informed her family members about such harassment whenever she visited her parental home. The prosecution claimed that the victim ultimately died by hanging after being unable to bear the alleged cruelty.

Following the death, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police for investigation. After the investigation, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused approached the High Court on appeal.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the relatives of the deceased, and found several deficiencies in the prosecution's case.

The Court noted that the principal witnesses alleging cruelty were close family members of the deceased. However, the Court observed that none of them had taken any contemporaneous steps or lodged any complaint before the authorities during the lifetime of the deceased, despite claiming knowledge of persistent harassment.

The Court further noted that several allegations regarding dowry demands and cruelty were not stated before the investigating officer during the investigation and appeared to have been introduced during the trial. Such material omissions, the Court held, significantly affected the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

Another important factor considered by the Court was the delay in lodging the complaint after the alleged incident. The Court observed that the explanation offered for such delay was vague and insufficient.

Turning to the medical evidence, the Court noted that the autopsy surgeon had deposed that the cause of death was ante-mortem hanging and was likely suicidal. However, the Court observed that the post-mortem report itself had not been produced or exhibited during the trial.

The Court emphasised that the post-mortem report constitutes primary documentary evidence reflecting the detailed findings of the autopsy, including the nature and characteristics of injuries and the medical opinion regarding the cause of death.

The Court held that the failure to bring such a crucial document on record without any explanation created a significant gap in the chain of evidence. The Court observed that the oral testimony of the doctor alone could not conclusively establish the cause of death in the absence of the exhibited report.

The Court further noted that even the oral testimony of the autopsy surgeon merely suggested that the death was “likely suicidal,” which was insufficient to establish suicide beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court observed that to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC, the prosecution must first prove the factum of suicide beyond a reasonable doubt and must further establish instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid as contemplated under Section 107 of the IPC.

Accordingly, the Court concluded: “…the allegations made by the prosecution witnesses being vague, general, and devoid of particulars do not inspire confidence. The absence of specific details, corroborative evidence, or contemporaneous documentation renders the entire prosecution case regarding dowry demand and cruelty inherently weak and unreliable. Such evidence, without clear particulars and substantiation, cannot serve as a basis for convicting the appellants under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code”.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish cruelty under Section 498A or the essential ingredients required to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction recorded by the trial court and allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Purna Chandra Raul v. State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:362)

Appearances

Appellants: Angshuman Chakraborty, Niladri Saha, and Subhojit Seth, Advocates

Respondents: Avishek Sinha and Tirupati Mukherjee, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment