The court affirmed that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, a husband must explain circumstances of an unnatural death occurring in a shared residence; failure to do so may lead to an adverse inference against him.

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 25.04.2017 and 29.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Barasat, North 24 Parganas is assailed in both the appeals.

2. Both the appeals are filed challenging the same impugned judgment and order of conviction and as such, those two appeals are taken up together for disposal.

3. By passing the impugned judgment both the appellants were found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, Jahangir Sahaji was sentenced to death for the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Rowsanara Bibi was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

4. In short campus the story of the prosecution is as follows:

“A written complaint was lodged by one Lucia Bibi being the first wife of the accused Jahangir Sahaji to the effect that she got married eight years ago with this appellant and since after her marriage with this appellant, she was subjected to physical and mental torture inflicted by her husband Jahangir Sahaji and by her mother-in-law Rowsanara Bibi, on failure to bring cash amount from her father in terms of the monetary demand. It is stated in the written complaint that both the appellants forcefully administered poisonous medicine to the complainant and her husband Jahangir Sahaji planned to kill this de-facto complainant at her matrimonial home in a night by electrocuting the body of the complainant wife by laying live wire, but this complainant somehow saved her life. Ultimately, this defacto complainant with her children left her matrimonial home and started residing at her father’s house. Thereafter, this appellant Imran Sahaji snatched their elder son namely, Imran Sahaji from the custody of this defacto complainant and took away Imran with him. This appellant, thereafter, married with Sanjura Bibi (victim) for the second time. On 03.03.2006 this instant complaint was lodged by this defacto complainant to the effect that the second wife of this appellant namely Sanjura Bibi and the son of the defacto complainant were murdered by these appellants within nineteen days from the date of second marriage of the appellant Jahangir Sahaji with the deceased Sanjura Bibi.”

5. Over the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant a case being Ashok Nagar P.S. Case No. 48 dated 03.03.2006 was started. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against both these appellants under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Charge was framed by the Trial Court against these appellants under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code

7. In this case, twenty-five witnesses were cited by the side of the prosecution and documentary as well as seized articles were marked as exhibits on its behalf. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced by the side of the defence.

8. Mr. Sekhar Kumar Basu, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidences on record on proper perspective and as such, the impugned judgment and order of conviction on such failure are wholly unwarranted by law. Mr. Basu further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and in this case, no direct or eye-witness to the incident exists and no motive has been proved by the side of the prosecution. Moreover, the appellant husband himself suffered burn injuries and was admitted into hospital for treatment. The mother-in-law (co- accused) was not present at the place of occurrence and no forensic or conclusive material supports homicidal intent. The attention of this Court is drawn by the