The Calcutta High Court recently granted an appeal filed by a man who had been convicted in 1987 for cruelty towards his wife and the abetment of her suicide.

Justice Subhendu Samanta highlighted that the engagement of a poor potter's wife in activities such as soil preparation for employment does not constitute a form of torture that would lead to the accusation of abetment of suicide.

The court observed that the deceased woman had entered into matrimony with a family of potters, all of whom were engaged in manual labor to craft earthen pots.

The poverty in the family of the potter may have raised some difference of opinion between their family members.''

This observation was made in the context of overturning the conviction of Bimal Paul, whose wife tragically took her own life in April 1985.

According to the prosecution's case, Bimal Paul's late wife was pregnant before their marriage, but the child passed away within three months of birth. Subsequently, it was alleged that Paul began mistreating his wife, subjecting her to frequent physical abuse.

The family of the deceased wife asserted that she was provided with food only once a day, and her in-laws subjected her to verbal abuse. Additionally, the allegations included the claim that Bimal Paul had ceased 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.

Bimal Paul contended that the trial court did not properly assess the evidence on record, pointing out numerous contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He additionally argued that the prosecution fell short in establishing the allegations of cruelty and torture beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge pointed out that the initial report of the wife's death was provided to the police by the appellant's family. The Court expressed skepticism about the narrative presented by the women's family in the subsequent filing of the case, suggesting that it might be a "concocted" story.

Advocates Soubhik Mitter, Somnath Mukkopadhyay, Sarayati Datta, and Chitrak Biswas appeared for the appellant. 

Advocates Narayan Prasad Agarwal and Pratick Bose represented the state.

After examining the case's details, the court observed that there was a lack of direct evidence indicating that the appellant had subjected his deceased wife to cruelty.

Case Title: Bimal Paul v. State of West Bengal