The statutory presumption under Section 113 B of the Evidence Act shifts the burden to the accused to provide a cogent explanation in cases of dowry-related offenses.

JUDGMENT

Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. – Both these appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 278 of 2003 with Sessions Case No. 04 of 2004 arising out of Deoghar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 592 of 2003, whereby and where under all the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant Kumod Mandal has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the appellants Dhathuri Mandal and Lagni Devi have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each.

2. Both these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short as per the fardbeyan of informant (Choukidar 4/14 Balkrishna Mirdha of Jasidih Police Station) who heard from his co-villagers that a female dead body is lying in the river Darwa east of his village. The informant went at the place of occurrence with his neighbour Choukidar 4/16 Neelkanth Mirdha and found a dead body lying in the river. Thereafter, the informant kept watching the dead body and sent Neelkanth Mirdha to the police station to inform the police. When the police came, the dead body was taken out from the river. By the physical appearance it seems that the dead body was of a married woman and she was killed by cutting the right side of her neck and for concealing the dead body, the same was thrown in the river.

4. On the basis of this information, an F.I.R. being Deoghar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2003 was registered under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially the dead body was not identified and during the course of investigation the same was identified as Anita Devi wife of Kumod Mandal. After investigation, initially the police submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons, namely, Yusuf Ansari, Kumod Mandal, Dhathuri Mandal, Lagni Devi who were tried in S.T. Case No. 278 of 2003. Thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against one Upendra Mandal and after cognizance his case was also committed to the Court of Session being Session Case No. 04 of 2004. Subsequently both the Sessions'' Cases were tried together.

5. Charges were framed against these appellants'' under Section 304 B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and against appellant Kumod Mandal an additional charge under Sections 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal code was framed to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses in this case.

7. After closure of the evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence.

8. The learned court below after considering the evidence and after hearing the arguments convicted all the appellants under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Kumod Mandal has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the appellants Dhathuri Mandal and Lagni Devi have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each.

9. The appellants being aggrieved of the said judgment have preferred these two appeals which have been heard together.

10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and we have gone through the judgment.

11. P.W.-1 (Santosh Mandal) had mediated in the marriage between the deceased and Kumod Mandal. He deposed that at the time of marriage an amount of Rs. 19,000/- was given as dowry and Rs. 2000/- was due. He further stated that Kumod Mandal used to say that the colour of the deceased is black and as such he is torturing her. Mother-in-law of deceased, Lagni Devi, was also using filthy language to the deceased. He further stated that he had seen the dead body on which there was mark of knife injury on the neck of the deceased. During cross-examination he stated that the kitche