JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J. :

1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 25.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. 01(01) of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No.24(12) of 2014 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more.

2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is as follows :-

Sumi Laha @ Puja (the deceased) was a 14-years old girl. She had a love affair with the appellant, a neighbour. In the evening of 13.09.2014 Sumi was alone at her residence. Her mother viz. Runu Laha (PW1) had gone to attend puja at a nearby house. Her father viz. Sujit Laha (PW9) was also outside. While Runu was at the puja, she was informed that her daughter had suffered burn injuries. She rushed to her residence. She found her daughter with burn injuries. Local people viz. Amit Kumar Dutta (PW6), Kartick Sutradhar (PW7) and Liton Pramanick (PW8) were present. They informed they had entered the room after unlocking the door. She asked her daughter why she had done this to herself. In response, her daughter stated appellant had set her on fire. Victim was taken to Debagram Health Centre. Due to lack of medical facility, she was referred to Krishnagar Hospital. Immediately after admission she expired. Written complaint was lodged by Runu at Debagram ROP resulting in registration of Kaliganj Police Station Case No.545 of 2014 dated 14.09.2014 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 18 of the POCSO Act against the appellant.

3. In course of investigation, appellant was arrested. Charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.

5. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.04.2018 and 26.04.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

6. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned Advocate for the appellant submits there is no direct evidence implicating the appellant in the murder. None of the local witnesses viz. PWs. 6, 7 & 8 saw the appellant near the place of occurrence. Oral dying declaration relied by the prosecution has not been proved beyond doubt. PWs.7 & 8 were present when the victim is said to have made oral statement to her mother (PW1). They did not speak of any dying declaration to PW1. The fact that victim told her father (PW9) not to spare the appellant while she was being taken to hospital is absent in the FIR. PW8, who accompanied the victim to hospital, has also not supported the prosecution case in this regard. Hence, the prosecution case suffers from various lacunae and has not been proved beyond doubt. Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

7. In rebuttal, Ms. Zareen N. Khan, learned Advocate for the State submits PW1 deposed her daughter made dying declaration to her. This fact is stated in the FIR and corroborated by PW6. PWs. 6, 7 & 8 also stated the door of the room was bolted from outside. This improbabilises a case of suicide. Appellant had a love affair with the victim. He also had close relationship with other women including PW13. This gave motive to the appellant to commit the crime. Accordingly, prosecution case is proved beyond doubt.

8. PW1 (Runu Laha) is the mother of the victim and the de-facto complainant. She deposed she had gone to the house of a neighbour to take prasad of ‘Graha Raj Thakur’. Her 14-year old daughter Sumi Laha @ Puja was studying in the house. A person from the locality informed her that her daughter was burning. She came to the house. When she enquired of her daughter, the latter told he