Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Subash Bhuyan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
CRA No. 310 of 2000
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Indian Evidence Act, Section 106, Section 114 - The judgment discusses the application of circumstantial evidence in a dowry death case. It highlights the burden of proof on the accused, the hasty cremation of the deceased, and the shifting of the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also emphasizes the need for a complete chain of evidence and the rejection of unconvincing explanations by the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the husband and in-laws of the deceased, were involved in the dowry death of the deceased. The deceased had been subjected to torture and died under mysterious circumstances, with the accused hastily cremating her without informing her parents or relations.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the hasty cremation, the absence of a convincing explanation for the death, and the evidence of torture on the deceased. The court emphasized the burden of proof on the accused and the need for a complete chain of evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of circumstantial evidence in a dowry death case, the burden of proof on the accused, and the rejection of unconvincing explanations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence, the shifting of the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the rejection of unconvincing explanations by the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused were directed to surrender forthwith for serving out their remainder of the sentences.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th November 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar-Aska in Sessions Case No.20 of 1999, 2. The case of the prosecution is that Accused No.2 (A-2) (Appellant No.2) Pradeep Kumar Bhuyan @ Sambhu had married the deceased Jotsna, the daughter of the informant, namely, Dukhi Jena (PW-11) on 3rd May, 1995. Accused No.1 (A-1) (Appellant No.1) is the father of the A-2 and Accused No.3 (A-3) (Appellant No.3) is the mother of the A-2. It is stated that at the time of the marriage, articles as per custom were given. However, A-2 had demanded a gold chain and on 20th January 1998, he received Rs.4,000/- from PW-11 towards the value of the gold chain.
3. On 27th January 1998, PW-11 went to the house of the accused and he learnt from his daughter that she had been assaulted by her in-laws. The deceased was not allowed to accompany PW-11 to her house. A-2 promised PW-11 that he would take the deceased to her house after harvesting was over.
4. Hearing the news about the death of the deceased, Kalu Pradhan (PW-9) and Biswanath Pradhan of same village of PW- 11 and one Murali Swain (PW-13) of village Belapada had gone to Dengapadar, the village of the accused persons. There, they learnt that her dead body had been cremated in haste without informing anyone. PW-11 then lodged an FIR on 30th January, 1998 at the Balipadar Out-Post.
5. The case of the defence was that they had not subjected the deceased to any torture or made any demand from the parents of the deceased. They pleaded that the deceased suffered from diarrhea and died on account thereof and that they had sent information to her parents. They alleged that PW-11, on the instigation by others, had demanded Rs.80,000/- as well as custody of the son of the deceased and declined to come and see her dead body. The accused claimed that the villagers had pressurized them to cremate the dead body of the deceased as they were prevented from offering Puja to Goddess Laxmi in the Jagannath temple as long as the dead body of the deceased was in the village.
6. Sixteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.
7. PWs-1 and 5 were witnesses to the seizure of the ash and the bones of the deceased from the cremation ground. DW-1 claimed that the deceased was leading a happy life with her husband and that she had died of diarrhoea; that the relations of the deceased did not come and the villagers of Dengapadar had pressurized the accused to cremate the dead body so that they can perform Laxminarayan Puja.
8. DW-2 was the brother of the A-2, who also claimed that the deceased and A-2 were leading a peaceful marital life; that she died of diarrhoea and that he had gone to village Goudiabarada to inform the parents of the deceased and PW-10 had asked to bring a cash of Rs.80,000/- as well as the son of the deceased after which, they would go to see her dead body. DW-2 also maintained that the villagers had insisted on cremation of the dead body of the deceased so that they could perform Gurubar Puja. DW-3 was a drummer, who proceeded ahead to the pier of the deceased Jotsna, beating the drum while her dead body was taken to the cremation ground.
9. PW-7, a cousin brother of the deceased, PW-8 is her paternal uncle, PW-10 is her maternal uncle and the two parents of the deceased, i.e., PWs-11 and 12 all stated that the deceased Jotsna informed them that she was being tortured in her in-law's house as she could not bring a gold chain with her at the time of her marriage. PWs-7 and 11 had also seen marks of assault on the deceased evidencing the torture on her.
10. After PW-11 lodged the written report at the Balipadar Out- post, Sri Prafulla Kumar Bodu (PW-14), the Assistant Sub- Inspector of the Balipadar Out-post under the Gangapur Police Station (PS) made a Station Diary Entry and sent the FIR to the OIC at Gangapur PS for registrat
The judgment establishes the application of circumstantial evidence in dowry death cases, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused, the need for a complete chain of evidence, and the rejection ....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Persistent dowry demands and cruel treatment resulted in the presumption of guilt for murder; circumstantial evidence and statutory presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applied.
The prosecution must establish circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Point of law : Fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must b....
The prosecution must establish a proximate link between dowry demand and the victim's death under Section 304B IPC; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
An offence like murder committed inside secrecy of a house, initial burden to establish case would undoubtedly be upon prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
