N. Chaudhury, J.

Appellant Amalesh Talukdar has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction in Sessions Case No.137/2010 by learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Police registered the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but after completion of investigation while filing charge-sheet offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was alleged. After the case was committed to Sessions the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately convicted him under the same section of law and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months more by his judgment and order dated 09.06.2015.

2. The prosecution story is that one Himangshu Medhi lodged an ejahar with Barpeta Police Station on 17.08.2010 informing that around 10.00 p.m. on 16.08.2010 accused Amalesh Talukdar set his wife ablaze by pouring kerosene oil on her after assaulting her brutally over a domestic dispute. The victim was the elder sister of the informant. When she raised commotion to save her life, the neighbours recovered her in half burnt state and admitted to Pathsala Civil Hospital by calling one 108 Ambulance service. However, she died in the hospital because of 90% burn injuries. Bhawanipur Outpost of Barpeta Police Station received the ejahar on 17.08.2010 at 8.20 a.m. and registered G.D. Eentry No.312 in regard thereto. The same was thereafter forwarded to Barpeta Police Station for registering the case. This is how Barpeta Police Station Case No.1068/10 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Police arranged inquest and post mortem examination of the dead body, recorded statements of witnesses and then filed charge sheet on 30.10.2010 vide Charge Sheet No.631/2010 against accused Amalesh Talukdar (the appellant herein) under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali committed the case to Sessions on 18.11.2010 and thereupon Sessions Case No.137/2010 was registered. Learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta framed charge against the accused person on 24.03.2014 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty on reading over the charge to him and claimed to be tried.

4. In course of trial prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited nine documents. In addition one Court Witness, Mahesh Hazarika, was also examined.

5. PW 1, Dr. Prabhat Chandra Sarma, was Senior Medical & Health Officer at Pathsala Sub-Divisional Civil Hospital and had occasion to examine the victim Swapna Medhi once she was brought in the emergency ward of the hospital by 108 ambulance service. He found that there was extensive burn of more than 80% covering face, limbs, body and genital area of the victim. He asserted in course of his examination-in-chief as follows :-

“The victim Swapna Medhi gave history in front of me that she burnt herself by lightening with kerosene oil.”

He proved Exhibit-1 injury report of the victim under his signature. It also contains remarks that the woman expired at the hospital at 1.30 a.m. on 17.08.2010 whereafter the dead body was handed over to police. It also indicates the date and time of examination as 16.08.2010 at 10.45 p.m. In course of his cross-examination he stated that the victim was in conscious state and she was also able to speak.

6. PW 2, Dr. Tilak Pathak, held post mortem over the dead body. According to him, it was a female dead body of 38 years age, average built with almost 90% burn of the skin except perenium and pubic area. Liver, spleen and kidney of the victim were already congested. In his opinion cause of death was due to shock (hypolumic) as a result of burn. He proved post mortem report Exhibit-2 under his signature. This witness was not cross-examined by the defence.

7. PW 3, Himangshu Medhi, is the informant in the case. According to him,