Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Anowar Hossain – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. No. 404 of 2016
Decided On : 10-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.04.2016 and 18.04.2016 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge at Dinhata, District - Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 04(05)/2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 6(D)/2015 thereby convicted the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that Rehena Parvin was married to Anowar Hossain, S/o Dablu Mia as per Shariat law on 3rd Aswin, 1419 B.S. As per demand of the groom’s family, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash, one Pulser motor cycle, gold ornaments, a cot, an almirah, a dressing table and a rack were given as the dowry. After marriage, she went to her in-law’s house and led conjugal life.
3. Her husband allegedly being ill-advised by his parents started torturing her physically and mentally. He demanded that she brings a further sum of Rupees one lakh from her father. Rehena used to report the incident of torture to her father over telephone. In the hope of leading peaceful conjugal life, she tolerated the torture. The appellant’s parents started to live in Siliguri, away from the son and daughter-in-law.
4. It was alleged that on 04.09.2013 at about 7 o’clock in the morning, her husband being instigated by his parents over telephone assaulted Rehena physically and thereafter poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. A neighbour informed her father over telephone. Her father, with the help of the neighbours, admitted her in MJN hospital, Cooch Behar with serious burn injuries. She was later shifted to Jeeban Deep Nursing Home, Cooch Behar, where she died.
5. On 05.09.2013, Ruhul Amin lodged a written complaint regarding the incident which resulted in registration of an FIR being Dinhata P.S. Case No. 1102/2013 dated 05.09.2013 under Sections 498A/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 initially against the husband and the parents-in-law.
6. Following the death of the victim, a change under Section 302 of the IPC was added to the FIR. On completion of investigation, the Charge Sheet has been filed against all the three accused named in the FIR for the offence under Sections 498A of the IPC and additionally, the offence u/s 302 of the IPC only against the accused Anowar Hossain.
7. In course of trial, charge for the offence u/s 498A of the IPC was framed against all the three accused person and additional charge was framed for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC only against the accused Anowar Hossain and contents of respective charges were read over and explained to the respective accused to which each of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, they were put to trial.
8. To establish the case, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and the documents produced were marked exhibits 1 to 15 for the prosecution and the materials produced were marked Mat Exhibits I to II/8. During examination of the witnesses, the prosecution declared PW-5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 as hostile witnesses.
9. Defence led no evidence. Based on the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the defence appears to be that the victim, while cooking, accidentally caught fire from the gas oven. At the time of accident, her husband had been in his motor vehicle repair shop at Petla Bazar away from the house and her parents-in-law had been at Siliguri. The defence claims that the accused has been falsely implicated into the case.
10. The Learned Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, concluded that the appellant was the assailant and declared him as convict and sentenced him as aforesaid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, no sufficient evi
Dying declarations can only support a conviction if consistent and made in a fit mental state; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt.
[A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be voluntary, coherent, and made in a fit mental state, even in the presence of minor inconsistencies.]
The dying declaration of the victim was admissible in evidence as it was truthful, voluntary, and not a product of tutoring or prompting.
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations as a sole basis for conviction, as established by various Supreme Court cases.
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if they are proven to be reliable, but lack of corroboration or inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.
Where there are more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustwor....
The evidentiary value of a dying declaration is undermined by doubts regarding the deceased's mental state and reliability during its recording, rendering conviction unsafe without corroborative evid....
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible, voluntary, and corroborated by other evidence, despite inconsistencies in earlier statements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
