IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of dowry death, the prosecution must demonstrate a proximate link between the cruelty related to dowry demands and the death of the victim, allowing for a presumption of guilt under Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. V.V. Thanyu. Heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent no. 1 and Mr. A.T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/informant.

2. In appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.11.2020 passed in Sessions case No. 139/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, whereby the learned Judge convicted Abdul Kalam Sk. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant or the accused) for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The period of custodial sentence is set off with the period of detention of the appellant during investigation as well as trial.

3. The genesis of the case was that the appellant was married to Minara Khatun on 05.02.2014 and their marriage was registered on the same day. Two months after their marriage the appellant and his family members subjected Minara Khatun (hereinafter also referred to as the deceased or the victim) to cruelty to meet their illegal demand of dowry. They also attempted to commit murder of the victim. A bichar (meeting) was also held and the victim continued with her marital life. However, on 29.07.2014 at about 09:00 p.m., the appellant and his family members relentlessly assaulted the victim and killed her as she failed to meet their illegal demand of dowry. The appellant at about 12:00 o’clock midnight informed Pinku Haque about the death of the victim. Mokbul Hussain (hereinafter the informant) is the victim’s and Pinku Haque’s elder brother.

4. An FIR regarding this incident was lodged with the police at Athani police outpost and a GD Entry No. 419 dated 30.07.2014 was registered and the FIR was forwarded to the police station and registered as Gauripur P.S. Case No. 602/2014 under Section 120(B)/304(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).

5. The Investigating Officer embarked upon the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch-map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also held inquest and thereafter, forwarded the body for autopsy. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant, under Section 120(B)/304(B) IPC, whereas, the appellant’s family members Abdul Salam, Moksed Ali, Monuara Bibi and Meherjan were not forwarded for trial. On appearance of the appellant, copies were furnished and this case was committed for trial.

6. At the commencement of trial, after hearing both sides, a formal charge under Sections 304(B)/302 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

7. To connect the appellant to the crime, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 7(seven) witnesses including the Medical Officer (M.O in short) and the I.O and the Court also examined Abul Laice Choudhury as CW-1. The appellant cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. On the incriminating materials projected through the evidence by the prosecution, several questions were asked to the appellant, who mechanically denied the allegations in an evasive manner.

Submissions

8. The learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that this is not a case of dowry death. There is no evidence of cruelty. The related and interested witnesses have deposed that the victim, Minara Khatun was subjected to cruelty by her husband and her family members, but, there is no instance that the victim or any of her family members have lodged any FIR relating to the cruelty meted out to the victim. It is also submitted that it is mentioned in the FIR that the victim’s marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 05.02.2014, but not a single witness testified that the marriage of the victim was solemnized on 05.02.2014. It has surfaced through the evidence that after two months of