RAM SANTOSH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. K. Mahajan and Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsels appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned P. P. , Assam.

(2.) THIS appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order dated 30. 4. 2004 in Sessions Case No. 403/2003 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. On the basis of such conviction the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default. Although, the appellant was charged also for an offence under Section 498-A of the IPC, the finding of the learned trial Court is that the offence of Section 498-A is not attracted in the present case.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that the deceased Gudari was married about 5-6 years prior to the incident with the accused Ram Santosh Chauhan. The deceased was the second wife of the accused and bore him 2 children. The first wife of the appellant/ram Santosh Chauhan) was alive at the time of the of the incident. On 17. 2. 2003, the father of the deceased heard his daughter had expired by taking poison and he lodged an F. I. R. in connection with the death of his daughter. In the F. I. R. lodged, the father of the deceased indicated that his son-in-law tortured his daughter on the previous night of the occurrence and drove out his daughter from his house and as such, she spent the night outside the house. On the morning of the occurrence also torture was inflicted on the daughter by the accused, for which the daughter Gudari consumed poison. The informant also intimated that he was told by the deceased that the accused intended to marry the sister of the deceased and because of this reason quarrel was going on between his deceased daughter and his son-in-law. It is the prosecution story that as the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the husband, she was forced to commit suicide. Although there was no direct evidence implicating the appellant, presumption under Section 113 A of the Evidence Act, 1872, against the accused can be drawn and he can be held liable for abetment of suicide of his wife, and thereby liable to conviction punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.