The burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain circumstances within their special knowledge, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:

1. Two appeals were filed by the same convict against the same judgment and order of sentence by learned trial court. By our order dated February 28, 2024, the appeal CRA 186 of 2014 being second in point of time was directed to be treated as an appeal by the appellant in CRA 614 of 2013. We propose to dispose of both the appeals as one.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated March 22, 2013 and order of sentence dated March 25, 2013 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XXXIV/May-2012.

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the de facto complainant lodged a written complaint with the Kharagpur Police Station on January 17, 2012. It was stated by the de facto complainant that he gave his daughter in marriage with the accused/convict about 2 ½ years ago. At the time of such marriage, the de facto complainant gave a cash of Rs. 2 lakh, 10 bhoris of gold ornaments and furniture. It was further stated that after such marriage, the daughter of de facto complainant came to her father’s house only once when she was carrying for 9 months. She was not allowed to come to her father’s house by her husband and mother-in-law.

4. The de facto complainant further stated in the written complaint that once he visited the in-law’s house of his daughter on the occasion of ‘Annaprasan’ but his son-in-law i.e. the convict avoided to talk to him. He also demanded a sum of Rs. 60,000/-for business through the victim. The de facto complainant, accordingly, paid the said sum to the appellant. However, peace did not prevail. On January 10, 2012, the de facto complainant went to the matrimonial house of his victim daughter to bring her to his house but the appellant refused to send her. Again, on January 16, 2012, elder brother and sister-in-law of the de facto complainant went to bring the victim but she was not allowed to come to her father’s house.

5. The de facto complainant also stated in his written complaint that on January 17, 2012 at around 11.00 am, the appellant son-in-law informed him over phone that he had cut the daughter of de facto complainant. The de facto complainant immediately went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and found that the neck of his daughter was more than half chopped and the tongue cut off and lying near the rice-cooker. Her right cheek was also chopped. The de facto complainant was also informed by the local people that the appellant was taken by his cousin brother by his motorbike to the police station where he surrendered. He further stated that since then the appellant and his cousin brothers were absconding. The dead body of the victim was recovered by police on the statement of the appellant. It was also stated that when he went to the house of cousin brother of the appellant, he found the mother-in-law of the victim sitting with the child of the victim in her lap. Her wearing apparels were stained with blood. She is said to have stated before police that her son murdered the victim with a katari.

6. On the basis of such written complaint, Kharagpore PS Case No. 25/12 dated January 17, 2012 under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant. Police took up investigation and submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Accordingly, on the basis of materials in the case diary, charges under Section 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant on June 01, 2012.

7. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all. In addition, prosecution also relied upon certain documentary as well as material evidences.

8. Upon conclusion of evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded innocence in such examination. He categorically made a statement in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he did no