The real motive of the death shall be found else normally husband or In-laws are the suspected people. Hence its time to the Husband and In-laws, to reveal the facts of the matter with the help of court/police through proper investigation.
Unless otherwise single allegation, on the alleged harassment/cruelty for dowry or others, is proved, the conviction under section 304B is remote. Hence the husband no needs to fear at this moment and if he can investigate to find the reasons and its supporting circumstances then certainly husband and in-laws would be out of danger.
If any say that during the trail by effective cross examination the case could be won, then it is in wrong track because without truth or circumstances the trail journey goes on?
If suppose, wife was talking to friends, relatives and others before she committed suicide without telling or issues from husband or by telling some other issues of her then those would be helpful to the husband and in-laws. These could be revealed with proper investigation before evidences destroys.
Hence fair and transparent investigation is vital for fair trail that is the fundamental right of the accused as well as victim as per Article 21 of Constitution of India. Read the below citation completely for good understanding of the law position....
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA,
MANIPUR, TRIPURA MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(Agartala Bench)
Writ Appeal No. 20 of 2010
Appellant:
Sri Rana Sinha @ Sujit Sinha,
Son of Late Rajeswar Sinha,
Resident of Debdar,
P.S. Baikhora, Belonia,
District – South Tripura.
By Advocates :
Mr. S. Talapatra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. D. Bhattacharjee
Mr. Bhaskar Deb.
-versus-
Respondents:
1. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, Agartala,
3. Sri Dipangshu Ranjan Mazumder The then Officer-in-Charge of Baikhora P.S., Government of Tripura, Agartala.
4. Sri Tapan @ Parah Tapan Mazumder, Son of Late Satish Majumder, Resident of Debdaru, P.S. Baikhora, Belonia, District – South Tripura.
By Advocates:
Mr. R. C. Debnath, Spl. Public Prosecutor,
Mr. A. C. Bhowmik,
Mr. D. C. Roy,
Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocates.
Amicus Curiae:
Mr. D. Kabir, Advocate
Writ Appeal No. 20 of 2010
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY
Dates of hearing : 10.12.2010 & 03.02.2011
Date of delivery of Judgment : 28.04.2011
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Ansari, J)
Article 21 guarantees fair trial. A fair trial is impossible if there is no fair investigation. In order to be a fair investigation, the investigation must be conducted thoroughly, without bias or prejudice, without any ulterior motive and every fact, surfacing during the course of investigation, which may have a bearing on the outcome of the investigation and, eventually, on the trial, must be recorded contemporaneously by the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation. A manipulated investigation or an investigation, which is motivated, cannot lead to a fair trial. Necessary, therefore, it is that the Courts are vigilant, for, it is as much the duty of the Court commencing from the level of the Judicial Magistrate to ensure that an investigation conducted is proper and fair as it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to ensure that an investigation conducted is proper and fair. A fair investigation would include a complete investigation. A complete investigation would mean an investigation, which looks into all aspects of an accusation, be it in favour of the accused or against him.
2. Article 21, undoubtedly, vests in every accused the right to demand a fair trial. This right, which is fundamental in nature, casts a corresponding duty, on the part of the State, to ensure a fair trial. If the State is to ensure a fair trial, it must ensure a fair investigation. Logically extended, this would mean that every victim of offence has the right to demand a fair trial meaning thereby that he or she has the right to demand that the State discharges its Constitutional obligation to conduct a fair investigation so that the investigation culminates into fair trial. The State has, therefore, the duty to ensure that every investigation, conducted by its chosen agency, is not motivated, reckless and that the Investigating Officer acts in due obedience to law. It is only when when the State ensures that the investigation is fair, can it (the State) be able to say, when questioned, that the trial conducted was a fair trial. Article 21, therefore, does not vest in only an accused the right to demand fair trial, but it also vests an equally important right, fundamental in nature, in the victim, to demand a fair trial. Article 21 does not, thus, confer fundamental right on the accused alone, but it also confers, on the victim of an offence, the right, fundamental in nature, to demand fair trial.
3. The alleged violation of the above-stated principles is at the heart of the controversy in the present appeal, wherein the appellant is the unfortunate son, whose parents were put to death at the time, when the appellant was barely 5/6 years old and claims to have helplessly witnessed his parents being killed.
