In cases of dowry death, the prosecution must prove the demand of dowry and torture of the wife by the husband or his relatives. The death must be shown to be homicidal, and the foundational facts attracting the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act must be established against the accused.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.4, Raghunathpur, Purulia in Sessions Trial No.8(12)06 arising out of Sessions Case No.449 of 2006 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life in respect of charge under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was awarded in respect of offence under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Prosecution case runs as follows:-

Bijoy Karmakar was married to Sonali on 28th Ashar 1411 BS according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage Rs.75,000/- including gold and silver ornaments, furniture etc. were given to the bridegroom party. Sonali started residing at the matrimonial home. One year and eight months later she gave birth to a daughter. After giving birth to the daughter, her husband Bijoy and other in-laws including mother-in-law viz., Urubala Karmakar and devar (brother-in-law) viz., Dulal started to torture her physically and mentally. They demanded Rs.40,000/-. Her father viz., Magaram Karmakar tried to settle the matter but failed. Due to poverty he was unable to arrange the money. On 29.06.2006 at 11.30 A.M. Magaram received information that his daughter had sustained 90% burn injuries. He rushed to her matrimonial home hand found her lying in the verandah. She was shifted to hospital. Soon thereafter, Sonali died.

3. Magaram lodged written complaint against the appellants i.e. Bijoy Karmakar (husband of Sonali), Urubala Karmakar (her mother-inlaw) and Dulal Karmakar (her brother-in-law) resulting in registration of Raghunathpur Police Station Case No.35 of 2006 dated 29.06.2006 under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 498A/34 and Sections 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants and Dulal Karmakar. During trial prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was their specific defence Sonali had suffered accidental burns during cooking. It was the further defence of Dulal Karmakar that he resided separately from the couple and was at his place of work at the time when the incident occurred. He led defence evidence through DW1, an Assistant Professor of Raghunathpur College to prove his alibi. Upon considering the evidence on record, trial court by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2011 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Dulal Karmakar, however, was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

5. Mr. Moinak Bakshi, learned Advocate for the appellants argued prosecution case of torture over demand of dowry has not been proved. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted relationship between the couple was good for one year and four months. PW1 is silent with regard to complaints of torture by Sonali soon before her death. On the other hand, PW2, a neighbour deposed Sonali told her that her saree had caught fire while cooking. This wholly improbabilises the prosecution case. Appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.

6. Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned Advocate for the State submits Sonali died due to burn injuries at the matrimonial home. Post mortem doctor (PW6) deposed that she had suffered 100% burns and opined death might be homicidal. PW1 stated Sonali told him that the appellants had set her on fire. Possibility of accidental death is wholly ruled out.

7. PWs, 1, 4, 8 and 9 are the relations of deceased Sonali.

8. Magaram Karmakar