(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
ANM Bashir Ullah J } Parimal Adhikari……
Mustafa Zaman Islam J } Informant-Appellant
vs
Judgment } Sree Kisno Sarker
August 6th, 2018 } and others
………..Respondents
Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain (VIII of 2000)
Section 28
When wife is killed or met with her death in the house of her husband, the primary onus lies upon her husband and the other inmates of the house to explain as to how she met with her death and in that view of the matter since Dipongkar Sarker is the husband and Rita Sarker is the mother-in-law of the deceased, so they are under the legal obligation to explain the cause of death of the deceased………………..(11)
None appears-For the appellant.
Mintu Kumar Mandal, Advocate-For the Respondents Nos.1-4.
Anwara Shahjahan DAG with Md Aminul Islam DAG with Fatema Rashid AAG-For the State.
Judgment
ANM Bashir Ullah J : This criminal appeal, under Section 28 of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (in short, the Ain) at the instance of informant appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-11-2012 passed by the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal, Barisal (in short, the Tribunal) in Nari-o-Shishu case No. 546 of 2012 under Section 11 (Ka) of the Ain discharging the accused respondent nos. 1-4 from the case.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal, in short, is that the present appellant Parimal Adhikari as informant lodged the First Information Report (in short, the FIR) with Gauranadi Police Station of district Barisal alleging inter-alia that Nipa Rani aged about 19 years is the daughter of his brother who got married with accused Dipongkar Sarker one year ago, immediate after marriage the FIR named 6 accused raised their voice for dowry and the deceased since expressed her inability to fulfill the demand of the accused they started to assault her mentally and physically. On 9-6-2012 at 7-30 pm the accused persons created heavy pressure upon Nipa Rani for bringing Taka 200,000 as dowry and since she again reiterated her earlier position the accused person assaulted her indiscriminately. The informant being aware of the said occurrence had gone in the house of the accused but they were not allowed to enter into the house. Nipa Rani met with her death for the merciless assault of the accused. The accused persons in order to misdirect the occurrence of murder or Nipa Rani poured poison on her mouth and leaving the dead body in the yard of their house fled away successfully.
3. On the basis of the above noted FIR Gouranadi PS case No. 10 dated 10-6-2012 corresponding to GR case number 154 of 2012 under Sections 1l(Ka)/30 of the Ain were started.
4. The case was investigated by Swapan Kumar Howlader, Sub-Inspector of Police who on completion of the investigation submitted police report on 18-9-2012 recommending the trial of accused Dipongkar Sarker, the husband of the deceased and Rita Sarker, the mother of the principal accused Dipongkar Sarker and recommended for the discharge of the remaining 4 accused namely, Sreekisno Sarker, Debashis Sarker, Biplob Sarker and Suvas Sarker.
5. The informant immediate after submissions of the police report as stated earlier filed a naraji petition for taking cognizance against the remaining 4 accused who were recommended for discharge by the Investigating officer. The trial Tribunal heard both the parties on the police report and the naraji petition and by his impugned order dated 13-11-2012 took cognizance against accused Dipangker Sarker and Rita Sarker under Sections 11(Ka)/30 of the Ain and discharged the 4 accused namely Sreekisno Sarker, Debashis Sarker, Biplob Sarker and Suvas Sarker.
6. The informant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of discharge of the said 4 FIR named accused filed this appeal in this Court.
7. None appears to support the appeal although the appeal is pending in this Court from 2013 and in that view of the matter the appeal is pending for the last 5 years for hearing. Over and again, the appeal has been appearing in the daily cause list of this Court for several days but nothing is sufficient to knock conscience of the learned Advocate for the appellant.
8. Mr. Mintu Kumar Mandal the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents nos. 1-4 submits that if for the sake of argument it is conceded for a moment that the deceased was murdered in the house of her husband Dipongkar Sarker in that event also the husband and the other inmates of the house are mainly responsible to explain as to how Nipa Rani met with her death but these 4 accused respondents are not the inmates of the house of Dipongkar Sarker, they are simply co-villagers of the principal accused and there is no specific allegation and overt act either in the FIR or in the naraji petition as to how these 4 accused had participated in causing the murder of the deceased. In fact the informant in order to fulfill his luxurious desire included the names of these 4 accused in the case having no specific allegation and overt act against them, as a result, the Investigating Officer on the right assessment of the facts and the evidence collected thereto recommended for the discharge of these 4 accused respondents from this case and the trial Tribunal being convinced of the said report discharged them from the case. So the impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court.
9. We have considered the above submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1-4 and have gone through the materials on record.
10. On going to the materials on record it appears from the FIR story that there is a common allegation that these 4 respondents along with 2 other accused who were recommended for trial by the IO had assaulted the victim causing her death but there is no specific allegation and overt act against these 4 respondents. The allegation made against them is very much superficial in nature.
11. Over and again, it is the settled principle of law that when wife is killed or met with her death in the house of her husband, the primary onus lies upon her husband and the other inmates of the house to explain as to how she met with her death and in that view of the matter since Dipongkar Sarker is the husband and Rita Sarker is the mother-in-law of the deceased, so they are under the legal obligation to explain the cause of death of the deceased.
The Investigating officer on the right assessment of the fact and materials on record recommended for discharge of these 4 respondents and in the naraji petition also we find it difficult to discover any specific allegation and overt act against these respondents regarding the murder of the deceased. So, the trial Tribunal on the proper assessment of the evidence and other materials on record rightly discharged the 4 accused. We find it difficult to discover any error of law and fact in the impugned order and having regards to the above discussion we find no merit in the appeal.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Tribunal is directed to proceed in the case for the remaining 2 accused who were recommended for trial if the trial is still pending.