SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 635

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. Y. Eqbal, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
TANUA RABIDAS – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1503 OF 2007
Decided On : 04-09-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of independent witness, if truthful and reliable and also corroborated by other evidence, can be acted upon for conviction.

Headnote:Criminal trial – Independent witness – Evidence of – Fully corroborated by other evidence – Found truthful and reliable – Is important evidence. (Para 15)

       (1996) 8 SCC 217 – Relied upon

       (2011) 10 SCC 173 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was put on trial along with co- accused Sarbananda Das for offence under section 302/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat acquitted the co-accused Sarbananda Das but held the appellant guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-with default clause.

       The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismissed the said appeal.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       

JUDGMENT :

M. Y. Eqbal, J.

The appellant was put on trial along with co- accused Sarbananda Das for offence under section 302/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC'). The Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat by judgment dated 30.03.2006 in Sessions Case No.27(J.J.) of 2005, acquitted the co-accused Sarbananda Das but held the appellant guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-with default clause. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2006, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal by special leave.

2. According to the prosecution, the appellant- accused Tanua Rabidas was working as an Assistant in the Social Welfare Department. He was married with Meera Saikia Rabidas and both were living together and had no issue. On the day of their marriage anniversary, it was alleged that the accused-appellant along with co-accused Sarbananda Das were present in the house. The appellant poured kerosene oil upon his wife and set her on fire. She was immediately removed to Mission Hospital, Jorhat and therefrom to Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital. The victim succumbed to the burn injuries. The First Information Report (for short the 'FIR') was lodged at Jorhat Police Station Case No.496/99 by PW-1 Atul Saikia the brother of the victim. After usual investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against both the accused under sections 302/326/34 IPC and the case was accordingly committed to the Sessions Court.

3. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. PW-1 Atul Saikia the brother of the victim in his evidence stated that his sister was married with the accused-appellant nine years before the incident. He deposed that the accused- appellant had two wives prior to the marriage with his sister and he had deserted first wife before marrying his sister. He, on being informed about the incident went to the Hospital and was advised by the Doctor to take his sister to the Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital for better treatment.

4. PW-2 is the son of the accused-appellant from his first wife. He was living with the couple but he deposed that after hearing a commotion he saw his step-mother near the gateway.

5. PW-3 and PW-4 are the neighbourers of the victim. After hearing the commotion, they also saw the victim near the gateway. PW-8 had accompanied PW-1 to the hospital and deposed that the deceased had made a dying declaration in their presence stating that her husband had set her on fire.

6. Another person present at the time of the occurrence was Mamu Borbora, a maid servant. Her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but she could not be examined because of her absence and she was traceless.

7. Dr. Rupak Kr. Gogoi, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the victim, was examined. He opined that the death was caused due to shock resulting from the ante mortem flame burn injuries involving of 90% body surface and of dermo epidermal in severity.

8. Besides the oral dying declaration, the victim also made a dying declaration before PW—6 Dr. Imnuksungba Langkumer who is working at Jorhat Christian Hospital. This witness has deposed that on 04.12.1999, he had examined the victim who was brought to the hospital in burned condition. The witnesses has deposed that he had enquired from the patient as to how she sustained burn injuries whereupon she reported that her husband poured kerosene oil upon her and ignited it. While recording the case history, PW-6 Dr. Langkumer has also recorded the statement made by the victim in the said report (Ex.6). The evidence of PW-6 Dr. Langkumer was supported by PW-7 Nabanita Barauh a nurse who was attending the victim in the said ho











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top