Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
C.R. Sarma, J.
Ramesh Das - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
CRL.A.(J) No. 127 of 2013
Decided On : 22-01-2016
For the Appellant : S.K. Agarwal.
For the Respondent: K. Munir.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 306, 307,306 304(B)/34 , 107 and 302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Offence of murder – Appeal against convicted – Examination of accused - Appeal is directed against judgment and order, passed by learned Sessions Judge, in Session Case No. - By impugned judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge convicted appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and pay fine of in default suffer R.I. for another period of 6 months - Prosecution case, in brief is that marriage between appellant and his wife was performed in year and thereafter they used to live in marital home till death of the deceased - Alleged appellant subjected his said wife to torture in connection with demand of money and being enable to bear torture she committed suicide by hanging herself - Father of deceased lodged FIR with the police - On receipt of FIR police registered a case under Section 304(B)/34 IPC against appellant and his father - At close of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against accused persons under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC - Offence being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions - Case was committed to Court of learned Sessions Judge - Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC against appellant and discharged father of appellant - Charge was read over and explained to which appellant pleaded not guilty - His plea was a denial one - In support of its case prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including Investigating Officers - Medical Officer and Executive Magistrate, who performed inquest in respect of dead body - Close of evidence for prosecution, accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C - Allegations brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence – Held, Father of deceased who lodged FIR stated that appellant and his father used to torture deceased in connection with demand of money - Witness also did not state anything regarding nature of torture meted out to deceased and amount of money demanded by appellant - From evidence given by PW 1, 2 and 3, it appears that their evidence regarding torture and demand of money or articles is vague - Said bold statements, made by them, cannot lead to conclusion that deceased was tortured by appellant in connection with demand of money - Cannot be safely hold that alleged torture was cause of death of deceased - There is nothing, on record, to show that appellant had intentionally instigated or added deceased to commit suicide - Therefore I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt - Appellant had abetted deceased to commit suicide - Therefore, benefit of doubt should go in favour of appellant i.e. accused person – Court sufficient merit in appeal requiring interference - Accordingly, impugned conviction and sentence are set aside - Appellant is acquitted and he be released forthwith, if not required, in any other case - Before I part with judgment, I acknowledge with appreciation services rendered by, Amicus Curiae and order that an amount be paid as his remuneration by State Legal Services Authority - Return the LCR – Ordered accordingly
C.R. Sarma, J.
This appeal, from jail, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in Session Case No. 93(M)/2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default suffer R.I. for another period of 6 months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the appellant and his wife (since deceased) was performed in the year 2008 and thereafter they used to live in the marital home till the death of the deceased. As alleged, the appellant subjected his said wife to torture in connection with demand of money and being enable to bear the torture she committed suicide on 24.06.2012 by hanging herself.
3. PW 1 i.e. the father of the deceased lodged the FIR with the police. On receipt of the FIR police registered a case under Section 304(B)/34 IPC against the appellant and his father. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and discharged the father of the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. His plea was a denial one.
In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Investigating Officers (PW Nos.7 and 8). The Medical Officer (PW 9) and the Executive Magistrate (PW 10), who performed the inquest in respect of the dead body. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence.
4. Considering evidence, on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the findings that the appellant tortured his wife in connection with demand of money and that the said torture led her to commit suicide. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. The other accused person i.e. the father of the appellant was acquitted for want of evidence.
Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence aforesaid the convicted person, who has been undergoing the imprisonment, has preferred this appeal from jail. As there is none to represent the appellant, Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant.
5. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae, referring evidence, on record, has submitted that except the evidence given by PW 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, there is no other incriminating evidence against the appellant. The learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that though PW 1 and 2 stated that the appellants used to torture the deceased in connection with demand of money, there is no specific evidence indicating the amount of money so demanded by the appellants and the nature and gravity of the torture alleged to be meted out to the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no substantive evidence for concluding that the alleged torture and demand of money were the causes of committing the suicide. The learned Amicus Curiae referring to the statutory provision prescribed by Sections 307 and 306 IPC has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the ingredients under Section 107 IPC and as such the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 306 is not maintainable. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment for about 2 years 6 months for no fault on his part. In view of above, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellant is entitled to be a
