IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that the presumption of guilt under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applies when the prosecution proves the essential elements of dowry death under Section 304(B) IPC, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, both dated 04.12.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial Case No. 200 of 1989; whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Krishna Narayan Saha, gave his statement before the police on 20.12.1988, that the marriage of his sister Samanwita Paul was solemnized on 30.01.1983 at Kolkata with Dewashish Paul (appellant), who was employed as an Engineer at Bokaro Thermal. It is also stated that she often used to visit Kolkata but never appeared happy. It has been further stated that the accused applied pressure on his wife to bring costly gifts or article from her parents and as a result of such pressure his father was compelled to purchase N.S.C. worth Rs.20,000/-. Later on, Devashish Paul started putting pressure on his father for giving a plot of land at Kolkata, and started ill-treating his sister for the same. Further, it has been stated that the accused had gone to Kolkata on 12.07.1988 and demanded that the plot of land should be transferred. This plot of land was purchased by the informant’s father in the name of his two daughters.

The further case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.1988, the informant received a message at Durgapur about the death of his sister at Bokaro thermal. At Bokaro thermal, on enquiry, the accused told him that his sister consumed rat poison and committed suicide and the body has been sent to Giridih for post-mortem. At Bokaro thermal, Dewashish Paul insisted that his father should give the statement to the police supporting the earlier statement given by the accused regarding the incident. The informant has further stated that the accused told him and his family members should give the similar statement. Being under tremendous pressure, the informant did not understand the implications and gave the statement to police that cordial relationship existed between the husband and wife.

Later on, the dead body was taken to Kolkata. However, when the informant saw the dead body, he found several injuries on it. After seeing the body, the informant was also convinced that his sister was murdered. Soon, the information was given to police and prayer for re-postmortem report was made. Re-postmortem report was done and several ante-mortem injuries were found on her person. Thereafter, the informant was satisfied that his sister has been murdered and the accused has tried to make a different story.

On the basis of this report, a case was registered on 20.12.1988 against the accused person at Bokaro Thermal Police Station under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant assails the impugned judgment on following grounds:

(i) The learned trial court failed to take into consideration the relevant matters and based its findings on wholly extraneous and irrelevant matters not germane for the purpose of passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is bad in law and facts and is against the weight of evidence adduced.

(iii) The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly and, therefore, has come to wrong findings.

(iv) The learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence wholly on conjecture and surmises.

(v) The learned trial court failed to take into consideration that the case of the prosecution is full of doubt.

(vi) The learned trial court failed to take into consideration that the delay in lodging the first information has not been properly explained.

(vii) The learned trial court failed to take into consideration that the re-postmortem has been done after a long gap