IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty and dowry death – Requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial does not stand altered even after introduction of Section 498A or 304B of IPC or 113B in Evidence Act.
(2) Statement of accused person recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, is not a substantive piece of evidence.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.—Appellants are the two convicted persons in Sessions Trial No.03/October/2006, in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Bolpur, Birbhum. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Trial Court is dated April 30, 2012, which is challenged in this appeal.

2. In this appeal this Court is to adjudicate firstly, the propriety of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court as above in so far as whether the trial Court has duly and appropriately invoked provisions under Section 304B of the IPC, along with Section 498A thereof to find the appellants as convicts, that whether the trial Court has duly invoked and applied presumption under Section 113B of the Cr.P.C, that whether the trial Court has duly and appropriately scrutinized the evidence on record to come to the finding as regards proof of the basic ingredients of offence under Section 304B as well as 498A of the IPC and applied the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, to find, through the said evidence on record, that the guilt of the present appellants have been proved by the prosecution beyond scope of all reasonable doubts.

3. Simultaneous death of the victim Nilima Paul and her minor daughter was the reason for the de facto complainant to set the criminal justice system in motion to seek redressal. The de facto complainant namely, Bhubaneswar Ghosh lodged FIR on June 19, 2002. He reported death of the above persons, to have been caused on June 16, 2002. It was reported that the victim Nilima Paul had let her minor daughter to consume poison and also consumed the same herself. That has caused death of both the victims. The death occurs at victim’s matrimonial house. The informant and others could see the dead bodies after reaching to the place of occurrence upon obtaining information about the deaths.

4. The informant has alleged in the FIR that the victim Nilima Paul was subjected to severe physical and mental harassment by the present appellants and the other accused persons, exonerated in the trial. The appellant no.1 is the husband of the victim Nilima Paul and father of the deceased minor whereas accused no.2 is the brother of accused no. 1. It has been reported that three years prior to the date of the FIR, the victim Nilima Paul was married to the appellant no. 1 Nitya Gopal Pal. The minor, since deceased, was the child from this marriage tie. Allegedly the appellants and other two accused persons, who are wife of appellant no.2 and her brother, perpetrated continuous and grave physical and mental torture upon deceased Nilima Paul, on demand of dowry. The informant says that at the time of marriage he being the elder brother and guardian of the deceased upon death of their father, paid valuable marital gifts as dowry, on demand of the appellant no.1 and his family. Allegedly the appellants did not seize to desire more dowry and thus caused torture upon the victim in order to pressurise her to bring money from her paternal home. The informant also said that on June 9, 2002 the victim was forced to come back to her paternal house due to the unbearable torture. At this point, according to the informant, he was made to know about the facts of torture and demand of dowry by all the accused persons including the present appellants. The informant says further that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was collected by him and with the same the victim was again sent back to her matrimonial home.

5. The next important incident is of the death of the two persons as mentioned above on June 16, 2002.

6. Mr. Apalak Basu, appearing for the appellants has formulated certain points in defence of his clients. He says that the trial Court, before applying presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act as against t