Point of Law: Section 113 B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with a presumption as to dowry death.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. H.I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State of Assam.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and conviction dated 09.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions case No.59/2006 under sections 304(B)/34 IPC convicting the accused appellants and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years each.

3. The prosecution case was launched on the basis of an ejahar dated 16.07.2005 filed by the PW-4 (Sunil Debnath) inter alia alleging that his sister who was found dead with burn injuries in a naked condition and she has been killed by the accused persons named in the FIR.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the officer in charge, Hailakandi PS registered Hailakandi PS Case No.0225/2002 under sections 304 B/34 IPC for investigation. Accordingly, the investigation was conducted and thereafter charge sheet was filed under sections 304 (B)/34 IPC. The accused persons are the husband, brother in law and sister in law of the victim. After investigation, investigating officer laid charge sheet, however, the brother in law was not sent for trial for want of evidence.

5. Thereafter, committal court committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi. Charges were framed on 04.11.2006 against the appellants and was read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not to be guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the trial was commenced.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and the defence side examined one witness.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence/materials, the learned Appellate court concluded that the appellants are guilty of the offences and accordingly, pass the impugned judgment as discussed herein above.

8. Before determining the legality and validity of such conviction, let this Court now examine the deposition of the witnesses so as to arrive at a just and fair decision.

9. The star witnesses for the prosecution to prove the case are the PW-1 (Maya Deb), PW-2 (Sisir Dasgupta), PW-3 (Nandalal Debnath) and informant PW-4 (Sunil Debnath).

I. PW-1 Maya Deb who claims to be President of Mahila Samiti deposed in her evidence that she knows the accused persons as well as the victim and she is also aware of the marriage of the accused No.1 with the deceased which was performed nearly 2 years before the date of occurrence. She further deposed that she heard from some local people that a quarrel took place between the victim and the accused No.1. According to her on the fateful day the informant came to her house and informed that both the accused persons tortured the victim by not giving her food and driving her out from the house of the accused persons. According to her, as she was a President of the Mahila Samiti, she advised the brother of the victim to take back the victim from the house of the accused persons and asked PW-2 (Sisir Dasgupta) and PW-5 (Ranjit Debnath) to assemble at her house and when they came to her place the victim disclosed before her and PW-5 that she was tortured by the accused for the reason of her inability to fetch Rs.20,000/- from her brother. According to her, thereafter the victim PW-2 Ranjit Debnath and PW-4 Sunil Debnath went to the house of the accused and at the house of the accused, the accused No.2 Makhani Debnath gave a forceful push to the victim and the victim fell on the ground and therefore, the PW -1 rebuked the accused No.2. She further deposed that she advised the informant i.e., PW-4 Sunil Debnath to pay some money for the safety of the victim and accordingly and amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid which was informed to her by PW-4. She deposed that the accused persons continued to torture the victim and finally they drove the victim out of the matrimonial house and after 8 months, the brother of the victim brought the victim