The court upheld conviction for dowry death, emphasizing that evidence of torture and demand for dowry proven leads to presumption of causation under relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal, has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 19.05.2017 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 191 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the present appellant had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 304-B.

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as :-

As per the written report of the informant namely P.W.-4, who is brother of the deceased and the informant of the instant case, the case of prosecution is like that the marriage of the informant’s sister was solemnized with the accused/appellant on 12.06.2012 and after 15 days of the marriage, the accused/appellant and his family members started torturing her (deceased) to bring money of Rs. 20,000/ and a motorcycle from her parent’s house but she failed to fulfill their illegal demands.

3. It was alleged that she was assaulted very often. The brother(informant) got information from one Vijay Mahato that his sister was burnt alive after putting clothes in her mouth by the accused persons. On this information, the informant went to the house of his sister and found the dead body of his sister lying there in burn condition and clothes were gagged in her mouth.

4. On the basis of written report of the informant, an FIR being Kharswan P.S. Case No. 50/2012 dated 22.07.2012 was instituted for the offences under section 498A/304(B)/34 of the I.P.C against the accused persons including the present appellant. Thereafter investigation of the said case had been started by the concerned investigating officer (I.O) who had found the case to be true against the present accused and one Dulali Mahato and thereafter charge-sheet had been submitted against them for the offence under sections 304(B)/34 of I.P.C

5. Accordingly, the cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was explained to the accused persons and consequently charges under sections 304(B)/34 of I.P.C was framed against the accused persons including present appellant to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 09 witnesses namely P.W.1-Baikunth Mahato, P.W.2- Fagu Mahato, P.W.3- Bijay Mahato @ Vijay Kr. Mahato, P.W.4- Tika Charan Mahato, P.W.5- Kailash Mahato, P.W.6- Ramchandra Mahato, P.W.7- Rupatan Mahato, P.W.8- Dr. Md. Kalique and P.W.9- Animesh Kumar Gupta.

7. The statement of the present appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedural Code, in which he denied from the prosecution evidence and claimed himself to be innocent.

8. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, found the charges levelled against the present appellant and others proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 34 of I.P.C and as such, convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.05.2017 and order of sentence dated 19.05.2017.

9. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter of instant appeal.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

11. The following grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant i