Sudhir Kumar Das vs. State 2008

The fact of the case:

This appeal is filed by the convict appellant Sudhir Kumar das alias Khudi against the judgment and order dated January 26, 2003, passed by the additional session judge, Bagerhat, in sessions case no.84 of 2001. The prosecution case states that the accused, Sudhir Kumar Das alias Khudi, used to torture his wife Rani Das. The neighbor tried to solve this matter. But this is not an effect. On 5/5/2001 the accused Sudhir Kumar and his mother conjointly struck with blunt weapons the head of Rani Das. For the cause of excessive bleeding, she died. After that, the accused hanged his wife with a nearby mango tree and reported himself to the police station also claiming that his wife committed suicide by hanging.

The autopsy report found three types of injury and opined that the death was due to heavy shock and excessive hemorrhage. The police investigated and filed a charge sheet accusing the appellant and two others. This case proceeded to trial and at the time of trial the prosecution presented nine witnesses while the defense did not present any evidence.  The defense claimed that the deceased Committed suicide and the accused was falsely implicated in this case.
 

Issues of the case:

1. Whether the prosecution has provided enough evidence to prove the charges against the appellant.
2. Whether the accused has provided a satisfactory explanation for the death of his wife.

Arguments of the case:

The defense argued that there was no evidence connecting the accused to the offense and that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The defense referred to a case to support their contention that the appellant should not be held responsible for the death of his wife.

The prosecution argued that witnesses have testified to the accused and the deceased living together at the relevant time and that the accused failed to provide any explanation for the death. The prosecution relied on the principle of section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places an obligation on the husband to explain the circumstances of his wife's death when they were residing together.

Judgment of the case:

The court noted that the accused was living with his wife at the time of the incident and that he failed to provide any explanation for her death. The court referred to established legal principles that when a husband and wife are residing together, the husband is duty-bound to explain the circumstances of the wife’s death and in the absence of any explanation, the presumption is that the husband is responsible for death. The court concluded the prosecution successfully and proved the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court's judgment of guilt was justified. The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the penal code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of taka 5000. In default of paying the fine, he was to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.

Written by---
HT AL-AMIN KHAN
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka