Point of Law: An offence like murder committed inside secrecy of a house, initial burden to establish case would undoubtedly be upon prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. A Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

2. This appeal is against the judgment dated 07.06.2019, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 10(N)/2015, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

3. The prosecution’s case in brief is that an FIR dated 18.05.2013 was submitted by Prosecution Witness No. 9 (in short PW-9) to the Officer-In-Charge Samaguri Police Station, to the effect that her daughter, Dipali Biswas had been married off to the appellant No. 1 and that at the time of marriage various gifts had been given. However, the appellant No. 1 (husband), appellant No. 2 (mother-in-law) and the elder brother of the appellant No. 1 had been torturing her daughter physically and demanding dowry from her. The FIR further states that the above three persons had killed her daughter and packed her dead body in a gunny bag and kept it in a latrine situated behind the house of the appellant No. 1. Consequent to the above FIR, Samaguri P.S. Case No. 104/2013 under Sections 302/34 IPC was registered and PW-11 was made the Investigating Officer (I.O in short) of the said case. After investigating the case, the IO filed a charge-sheet against the appellant No. 1, i.e., Sri Chandan Biswas, husband of the deceased and appellant No. 2, i.e., the mother-in-law of the deceased and Prahlad Biswas, elder brother of the appellant No. 1, having found a prima facie case under Sections 302/34 IPC against the above three persons.

4. During the stage of framing of charge, the learned Trial Court framed two other charges besides Section 302/34 IPC, i.e. 304-B/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The addition of Section 304-B/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC the charges made against the appellants is reflected in the order-sheet of the learned Trial Court dated 04.03.2015.

5. During the Trial, the evidence of 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses and the deposition of Executing Oficer-1 were recorded. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they gave a blanket denial with respect to all the questions put to them. The learned Trial Court found the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused Prahlad Biswas was however acquitted from all the charges framed against him including Section 302/34 IPC. The appellants were also acquitted of the charges under Section 201/34 and IPC 304-B/34 IPC. On conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, the appellants were convicted to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that they were never aware that the body of the deceased had been stuffed in a gunny bag and was in the septic tank/latrine of the house in which the appellants were living in. He also submits that it appears that one Ranjit Mandal who is a relative of the appellant no.1 and who had been living with them, may have been having a relationship with the deceased, as he had fled away on 19.05.2013, after the body of the deceased had been discovered.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction of the appellants was made only on the basis of circumstantial evidence which has not been firmly established. He submits that the circumstances relied upon by the learned Trial Court do not form a complete chain to prove the guilt of the appellants in the death of the deceased. In this respect, he had relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681.The learne