KAILASH DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No.15 of 2005. By the aforesaid judgment and order the three accused/appellants have been convicted under Section 304B/34, IPC. While the accused/appellant No.1, Kailash Das, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more, the accused/appellant Nos.2 and 3, viz. Smti. Ulada Das and Smti. Manomati Das have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years each. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that PW 1, Giridhar Pathak, elder brother of the deceased Anjali Pathak, lodged an F.I.R. before the Barpeta Police Statioin at about 6.30 P.M. of 28.8.2001 alleging that on the previous day at about 7/8 P.M. the accused/appellants had tortured his sister to death. In the F.I.R. it was mentioned that Anjali Pathak was married to the accused/appellant No.1 on 11.12.2000 and immediately after the marriage the accused/appellant along with his mother, Ulada Das and sister, Manomoti Dashad been demanding dowry and on failure to pay the same Anjali Pathak was tortured to death. In the F.I.R. filed it was further alleged that at the time of her death Anjali was seven months pregnant. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. Barpeta P.S. Case No.226/2001 under Section 304B, IPC was registered. In the course of the investigation of the case PW 8, Sri Basanta Kumar Barman, visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map thereof. Inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased; several articles were seized by seizure list exhibited as Exts-4, 5 and 8. Statements of a large number of persons were also recorded. THE dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On receipt of the post mortem report and on conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellants and one more person i.e. Smti. Minati Das. THE offence alleged being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, by order dated 25.2.2005 committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Barpeta. In the trial Court charge under Section 304B, IPC was framed against the three accused/appellants and the 4th accused i.e. Smti. Minati Das. THE accused claimed innocence and wanted to be tried. In the course of the trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. THE statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. THEreafter three defence witnesses were also examined. At the conclusion of the trial, by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, whereas the 4th accused, Smti. Minati, Das has been acquitted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentences imposed this appeal has been filed.

(3.) PW 3, Sri Madhab Das, has corroborated the evidence of PW 1 in all material particulars including the demand for dowry and the torture meted out to deceased Anjali by the accused persons which fact was reported to the witness by the deceased herself. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 further goes to show that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries sustained by her and further that when they had gone to the house of the deceased they could find the dead body fully burnt lying in an isolated room which did not indicate any sign of burning of any other materials found in the room.