IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the importance of conducting a thorough and unbiased investigation to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Vivekanand Vivek for the appellant and Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 251 of 2016/Trial No. 65 of 2018, arising out of Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 455 of 2015, and by order 20.09.2018, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for three years, to pay a fine of 1000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for a period of one month. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. Navnita Kumari, the deceased died within five months of her marriage. There was no complaint with respect to any ill-treatment or demand of any dowry. In fact, after the marriage, the deceased had stayed at her parental home and had gone to join the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, only in the month of October after her second marriage (Duragaman). Shortly after that, in the night, she died of colic pain. However, the prosecution asserts that she was killed and her dead-body was thrown in river Ganges under the stealth of darkness. The consistent stand of the appellant is that the deceased had suffered colic pain in the night and before treatment could be administered to her, she died unfortunately. The information of her death was provided to her parents and others, but they have chosen to file this case against the entire family. However, only the appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, was put on trial. The dead-body, according to the appellant, was cremated, but the prosecution insists that since the dead-body has not been recovered, therefore, there is a presumption that the deceased has been killed.

4. The father of the deceased, namely, Suresh Mandal (P.W. 2) had lodged the First Information Report on 28.10.2015, alleging that the deceased was married to the appellant in the month of June, 2015. In the night intervening between 27th and 28th of October, 2015, the deceased had talked to her mother/Siyawati Devi (P.W. 3) but she had not complained about anything. This was at 8:00 P.M. in the evening. Later, at about 11:00 P.M., the appellant is said to have called P.W. 3 and informed her that the health condition of the deceased has deteriorated and that they should come immediately. P.W. 3 told the appellant that the family would reach only on the next day. Later, when the family of the deceased went to the village of the appellant, they found that the house had been abandoned and even the livestock had been taken away to some other place. This gave an inkling to P.W. 2 that perhaps the deceased has been killed and her dead-body has been disposed of. Allegation, therefore, was raised against the appellant, his parents and others of having killed the deceased.

5. On the basis of the afore-noted written report, Kahalgaon P.S. Case No. 455 of 2015, dated 28.10.2015, was registered for investigation under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C.

6. The police, as noted-above, after investigation submitted charge-sheet only against the appellant and put him on trial.

7. The Trial Court, after examining seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and two on behalf of the defense, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that except for the fact that the dead-body was not recovered, there is no other material to even remotely suggest that the deceased was killed. Had it not been true, the deceased would have surely complained against the appellant and his family members to her mother in the night when the occurrence is said to have been committed. No doubt, the dead-body was cremated before the f