Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1117 (GAU)

INDRAJIT DAS v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-12-13

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The appellant Indrajit Das has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulations. 2. Ejahar dated 16.04.2009 ( Ext. 2) was lodged against the appellant and two others by Ananda Mohan Das (PW-2), who is the grandfather of the deceased Anita Das. Ejahar discloses that Anita Das was given in marriage to the appellant no. 1 in April-May of the previous year according to Hindu customs. The accused persons started harassing Anita Das mentally and physically with demand for dowry. On 15.04.2009, at around 1.30 PM the accused persons tortured Anita physically and mentally and caused her death. The dead body of Anita was lying in the house of the accused persons. The said ejahar was registered as Lanka Police Station Case No. 47/2009 under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against all the accused persons and the case was committed to trial. While framing formal charges, the offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. 3. As many as 8 (eight) witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. The appellant along with the co-accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC. In so far as the appellant is concerned, stand taken was of total denial. 4. The fact that Anita Das suffered unnatural death and that her dead body was lying in the house of the appellant finds corroboration in the evidence of Bhushan Biswas (PW-1), who is the Gaonburha of the concerned village, Ananda Mohan Das (PW-2), who is the grandfather of Anita Das, Smt. Patu Bala Das (PW-3), who is the grandmother of Anita Das and Bipin Ch. Nath (PW-8), who is the Investigating Officer. The cause of death as per medical opinion rendered by Dr. Durgeswar Bora (PW-4) is on account of head injury with fracture of right parietal bone of skull. According to the deposition of said PW-4, the head injury mentioned in the Post Mortem Report was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel representing the appellant argues that in the absence of direct evidence, there is no material to show that he had caused the death of Anita Das and/or that he had dealt the fatal blow on the head of Anita Das. Referring to the deposition of Dr. 5. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel representing the appellant argues that in the absence of direct evidence, there is no material to show that he had caused the death of Anita Das and/or that he had dealt the fatal blow on the head of Anita Das. Referring to the deposition of Dr. Durgeswar Bora (PW-4), it is submitted that the possibility of injury being sustained by Anita Das by falling against hard substance cannot be overruled. Reference is also made to the deposition of Satya Das (PW-7), who is the brother of one of the co-accused and the uncle of the appellant, that around 2 PM on the day of the incident Anita fell down on the ground feeling dizzy. Mr. Pathak also submits that according to the said PW-7 the appellant along with the appellant's mother and his wife poured water on Anita's head when she fell down on the ground. An auto-rickshaw was brought and Anita was taken to Lanka Civil Hospital. Reference is also made to the Inquest Report to say that an altercation had taken place between Anita Das on one hand and the appellant and other members of the family over some internal affairs and they had taken her to Lanka P.H.C. but on the way she died. The submission made by Mr. Pathak on the basis of the evidence above was for the purpose of demonstrating that even if the appellant had dealt a blow on the head of Anita Das, he immediately tried to save Anita by pouring water on her head and by taking her to the hospital. On this count, argument advanced is that the appellant never had the intention to cause death and, therefore, this is a fit case where conviction under Section 302 IPC requires to be converted to one under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the entire evidence on record. The fact that Anita Das died as a result of head injury sufficient to cause death in the normal course is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. Also to be borne in mind is that no explanations whatsoever was forthcoming from the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 CrPC. It is also not in dispute that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. Also to be borne in mind is that no explanations whatsoever was forthcoming from the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 CrPC. There is also no dispute to the fact that the dead body of Anita Das was found in the house of the appellant and while she was in the custody of the accused person. 7. It is well settled in the law that in such circumstances the accused is obliged to give plausible explanation for the cause of death. However, as would be apparent from the statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, no explanation was made with regard to the cause of death of Anita Das. The very fact that the appellant failed to give plausible explanation operates as a strong circumstances against him that he alone is responsible for the commission of the crime. To reiterate, the situs of the crime is the house of the appellant. Accordingly, burden is cast upon the appellant to give cogent explanation as to how Anita Das suffered death. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Apex Court held that where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish a case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. However, the nature and amount of evidence to be led by the prosecution to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of comparatively lighter character and in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden always lies with the prosecution to establish the case and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden always lies with the prosecution to establish the case and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. To reiterate, in the present case the conduct of the appellant in not offering any explanation as regards the homicidal death of his wife inside the secrecy of his house operates as an important link to connect the homicidal death of Anita Das to the direct involvement and culpability of the appellant in the crime. 8. For all the discussions and findings above, we find no good ground to interfere with and/or to upset the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence so imposed upon him to suffer imprisonment for life together with the fine and default stipulations. This appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hojai Sankardev Nagar in Sessions Case No. 84(N)/2009 stands affirmed. Office to send back the Lower Court Records forthwith to the Court below.