The burden of proof lies on the accused to explain the circumstances of a homicide when the death occurs in their presence, with medical evidence establishing the cause of death as throttling.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant Arta Meher faced trial before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Boudh, in S.T. Case No.28 of 2004 for commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter “IPC”) on the accusation that, being the husband of Lalita Meher (hereinafter “the deceased”), he subjected her to cruelty and within seven years of the marriage, committed her murder by throttling in connection with a demand for dowry.

The learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2006, though acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 304-B of the IPC, but found him guilty of the offences under sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution case, as emerging from the First Information Report (hereinafter “F.I.R.”) lodged by P.W.4 Khirod Meher, the brother of the deceased, on 31.05.2004 before the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, in brief, is that the marriage of the deceased with the appellant was solemnized about forty days prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on the demand of the appellant, a sum of Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousand) in cash and gold ornaments were given. After the deceased stayed in the house of the appellant for about ten days, both of them came to the parental house of the deceased and stayed there for two days, after which they returned to the appellant’s house.

It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that the appellant used to torture the deceased after consuming liquor and assaulted her with an iron rod, tube light and wooden stick. On the eve of the Sital Sasthi festival at Sambalpur, the appellant and the deceased again came to the parental house of the deceased. The appellant alone went to Sambalpur to witness the festival, while the deceased refused to accompany him. The deceased was also unwilling to return to her matrimonial home as she was being physically and mentally tortured by the appellant.

It is the further prosecution case as per the F.I.R. that a village Panchayat meeting was convened and pursuant to the decision taken by the village elders, on 30.05.2004 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased accompanied the appellant to his house. On the following day, i.e., on 31.05.2004, P.W.4 received information about the death of the deceased. He rushed to the house of the appellant, found the dead body of the deceased and formed a firm opinion that the appellant had caused her death.

On the version of P.W.4, D.W.1, Manu Nayak, scribed the report, which was presented before the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station. Accordingly, Baunsuni P.S. Case No.37 dated 31.05.2004 was registered under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

P.W.9, the Officer in-Charge of Baunsuni Police Station, after registration of the case, himself took up the investigation. He examined the informant, submitted a requisition to the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh, for deputation of an Executive Magistrate to hold the inquest and also deputed a Constable and the Grama Rakhi to guard the spot and the dead body.

Upon reaching the spot, the Investigating Officer seized broken pieces of bangles, a saree and other articles under seizure list, Ext.8, examined other witnesses, and prepared the spot map, Ext.9. He searched for the appellant but found hi