BABAJI CHARAN BARIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Was the unfulfilled dowry claim of the appellant Babaji Charan Barik (hereinafter referred to as the `accused'). cause of death of his wife Gitanjali (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') ? Thc accused pleads innocence and terms the allegations made by the prosecution to be unfounded. He was held guilty for homicidal death of deceased.

(2.) Scenario as portrayed by the prosecution is as follows : The deceased and the accused were married sometime in June, 1980, at a temple, and were blessed with two. On 12-6-1986 the deceased was found dead with burn injuries. The accused lodged information at Sector 3 Police Station stating that his wife had committed suicide. But Kalbalya Charan Barik (P.W.12), the brother of the deceased lodged another information at the said Police Station alleging that his sister had sustained burn injuries on her person had not committed suicide and her death was homicidal. During investigation it came to the light that the accused had wilfully assaulted and ill-treated the deceased for which she committed suicide. Charge sheet was thus placed for commission of offences punishable under Ss.498A and 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). The accused was initially tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Panposh. After recording of evidence the learned Magistrate was of the view that the offence was one of murder and therefore, took cognizance of an offence punishable underS. 302, IPC and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. The accused was charged for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 496A and 302, IPC. The accused pleaded innocence and stated that he had neither demanded dowry, nor illtreated the deceased. According to him, the deceased committed suicide.

(3.) In order to further its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses. Nanda Barik (P.W.1), Gouri Barik (P.W.10), and Kalbalya Charan Barik (P.W.12) highlighted the prosecution case so far as the demand of dowry is concerned. Additionally P.W.12claimed to have seen the dead body of the deceased tied with a cycle chain to a sanitary pipe inside a latrine in a chair sitting position, an earthen pot was placed directly beneath her private part and smoke was coming out from that pot. Her thighs, buttocks and private part were burnt and a portion of her heir was also burnt, and there was a mark of injury on her neck. She had been virtually roasted with fire, and was already dead. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the evidence clearly established the charges, against the accused. He referred to S. 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act') to conclude that it was the duty of the accused to prove that the death was not due to his cruelty. Referring to S. 113B of the Evidence Act it was observed that Court had to presume that the death was a dowry death. He found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S. 302,IPC, but no separate sentence was passed in respect of the offence punishable under S. 498A.