IMPORTANT POINT
Conduct of an accused in absence of any reasonable explanation, may be an inculpable circumstance against him.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The present appeal is filed by the appellant, husband of Yogmaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’). A single appeal was filed by the present appellant and his mother-Gita Ghosh and unmarried sister Kalyani Ghosh A-3.

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

One Jiten Ghosh happens to be the de facto complainant of the instant case who lodged one written complaint with the local P.S. at Ranaghat on 24.07.1987 at 11.05 hours with a plea that his niece (sister’s daughter) Yogmaya was married about 1 year 4 months ago with accused Krishna Ghosh after giving proper dowry. Krishna Ghosh, his mother Gita Ghosh and sister Kalyani Ghosh used to rebuke his niece on very trivial house-hold affairs as they did not like his niece as his niece used to intimate her agony to her parents and to him. They went to Yogmaya’s in-law’s house and used to pacify the matter and ameliorate the same for the benefit of the Yogmaya and thus the conjugal life of Yogmaya was not so peaceful. On 24.07.1987 when he had been to his field one Tentul Mondhal intimated him that the woman folk were weeping at his house and he came to learn from his daughter-in-law Asha Ghosh that his niece Yogmaya had died. Then he proceeded to the house of Yogmaya which was about one mile away from his house and found the dead body of his niece Yogmaya at the verandah of the house of the accused covered with a cloth and the in-laws of Yogmaya were absconding at the relevant time. He came to learn from one Badli Ghosh, wife of Rishipada Ghosh, that on 23.07.1987 at about 8 p.m. she heard about the assault and crying and shouting of his niece Yogmaya but the persons of the locality could not enter into the house of the accused persons. On the relevant day, the dead body of Yogmaya was taken out by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and one Brijbala and they fled away after covering the dead body with a cloth. After uncovering the cloth he found that Yogmaya sustained bleeding injuries on her ear, nose, left eye, back and leg. Yogmaya died due to assault and torture of her in-laws by chain.

Upon such complaint, the instant case germinated against the accused persons and the criminal law was set in motion after investigation and they came to the conclusion with the submission of charge-sheet against all the three accused persons under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Copies were duly supplied to the accused persons under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) and the case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions and the cognizance of the case was taken under Section 193 of Code and charges were framed in terms of section 228 (1) (b) of Code on 9th February, 1993. Trial was held as the accused persons abjured guilt. Witnesses were examined and accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Code Learned Sessions Judge, Nadia held that the prosecution has established the accusations and directed conviction as noted above. However, no separate sentence was imposed in respect of offence relatable to Section 498-A.

In appeal, the High Court found that the same was without merit and dismissed the same by the impugned judgment.

4. In support of the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances do not establish the guilt of the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

6. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminatin