RENUKANA SENGUPTA Vs. DEBJANI SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta in complaint case No. C/113/88(T.R. 115/888) under S. 406, IPC.

(2.) The case of the appellant who was complainant before the Ld. Magistrate is as follows :- The complainant used to stay at 358, Goabagan Lane, Calcutta-6 along with her husband and three sons. Her second son Prabir was married to the accused being the O.P. in this appeal on 5-12-1981. The O.P. was an employee of New Bank of India, Clive Row, Calcutta and the complainant's son Prabir was an employee of N.T.M.C. Limited having its office at Kharda. After the said marriage the bride used to stay in the aforesaid matrimonial home up to October 1984 when the couple shifted to Kharda within the Factory compound where accommodation was allotted to Prabir. In August, 1985, a son was born to the accused. In February, 1986 the complainant' husband wanted to make a fixed deposit account of Rs. 10,000/- only (rupees ten thousand only). The accused suggested the said account to be opened in the Bank where she used to work in the joint name of complainant and the accused as it would earn more interest, she being an employee of the Bank. In April 1986, the complainant decided to keep her gold ornaments in a Bank Locker. Being asked the accused stated that no locker was available at that time in her Bank but she suggested the ornaments to be kept in her own locker as there was sufficient space in the same. The complainant agreed to the suggestion and in order to avoid any future controversy a list of gold ornaments to be kept in the said locker was prepared, which, amongst others was also signed by the accused. It was on 18-4-1986, the gold ornaments were also handed over to the accused by the complainant for safe custody. The ornaments as per the petition of complaint consists of 20 bharis, valued at Rs. 72,500/- on the said date. On 20-5-87 the accused accompanied by her brother Bapul left for her father's place at Uttarpara together with the son with the assurance that she would be back after four days. Ultimately, she did not return. In the meantime, some difference cropped up between the complainant's son and the accused. In spite of best endeavour no settlement could be arrived at and the accused also did not return from her father's place. On 21-8-87, Prabir wrote a letter to the accused complainant of indecent behaviour of his father-in-law. Complainant's husband sent his brother and his wife to the residence of the accused for bringing her back, but in vain. Complainant's husband also wrote to heron 1-2-88. In the said letter he also requested the accused to make arrangement for withdrawal of the fixed deposit and also to return the gold ornaments which were entrusted to her on 18-4-86. The complainant also sent a letter on 14-2-1988 conveying the same request. In the meantime, the accused wrote a letter to complainant's husband stating that the sum with which fixed deposit account was opened belonged to her, as her father gave it to his grand son at the time of first rice eating ceremony. She also denied story of entrustment of gold ornaments. Complainant's husband again wrote to the accused on 25-2-1988 that letter was not answered. It is alleged that due to the misunderstanding between Prabir and his wife namely, the accused, the latter decided to misappropriate the money as well as the gold ornaments. As all attempts to get hack the fixed deposit amount as also the gold ornaments failed, a petition of complaint was filed before the Learned A.C.M.M. over which cognizance was taken on 4-5-88. Subsequently, charge under S. 406, IPC was framed against the accused, which is to the following effect, namely, "that you, on or about 18th April, 1986 at 35B, Goabagan Lane, Calcutta-6 being entrusted with certain property to wit 20 bharis of gold ornaments belonging to the complainant Smt. Renukana Sengupta which were kept in your Bank Locker and you did not return the said gold ornaments to her and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 406, IPC." The accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The complainant examined eleven (11) witnesses including herself. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, by the impugned judgement acquitted the accused after giving her the benefit of doubt on a finding that story of entrustment of gold ornaments has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.