Back
Gauhati High Court
P.K. Saikia, M.R. Pathak, JJ.
Chandan Debnath - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2014
Decided On : 09-04-2015
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A/302 - Appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge - Convicting the accused person of offence and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine - Case, projected by the prosecution in the FIR and in subsequent trial, in short, is that the accused person married one about eight years ago prior to the date of incident - Few days before the incident in question, a party was arranged in the parental house of the deceased and on that occasion, the deceased and her husband along with family members were also invited – Held, evidence on record further shows that the deceased was first admitted to Hospital, too could not give her required treatment, she was then taken to Medical College & Hospital - These revelations coupled with some other facts including the fact that the accused and his family did everything possible to save the life of the victim and the fact that the accused too sustained burn injuries in his hands in the incident in question again evince the innocence of the accused person - Only serves to show that the claim that before her death, the victim told them that the accused had set her on fire on the night aforementioned is without any element of truth - Such revelation further fortifies the innocence of the accused person - In view of what we have discussed herein before and what have emerged there-from, Court are of the opinion that the prosecution could not make out the charge against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, learned Trial Court was not right in convicting the accused person of offence and sentencing him to punishment as aforesaid - Appeal allowed.
2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused person has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge.
3. We have heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Mr. H.J. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., for the State.
4. The case, projected by the prosecution in the FIR dated 24.09.2008 and in subsequent trial, in short, is that the accused person married one Monika Debnath (since deceased) about 8 (eight) years ago prior to the date of incident. Out of their wed-lock, 2 (two) daughters were born to them. However, sometime after the marriage, the relationship between the accused and the deceased started deteriorating.
5. Only few days before the incident in question, a party was arranged in the parental house of the deceased and on that occasion, the deceased and her husband along with family members were also invited. As the party was in progress, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased over some domestic matters and in that quarrel, the accused tried to kill his wife.
6. It has been submitted that on 24.09.2011 at about 1 a.m., there was a hullabaloo in the house of the accused person and on hearing such ruckus, coming from the house of the accused person, people nearby rushed to such place and found the wife of the accused lying on the floor of the kitchen with her body being burnt by fire. The people, gathered there, also noticed the accused person sustaining burn injuries on both of his hands.
7. The victim was immediately taken to Jorhat Civil hospital but Doctors referred her to Dibrugarh Medical College & Hospital for better treatment. However, after being brought to Dibrugarh, the victim died same day at about 3 pm. In that connection, an FIR was lodged by one Raju Debnath, brother of the deceased, with O/C, Mariani PS on 24.09.2008. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered vide Mariani P.S. Case No. 144/2008 u/s 498-A/302 IPC and ordered one Sri Bhupen Tamuli, S.I. of police, to investigate the case.
8. Being so entrusted, Sri Tamuli, S.I. of police, visited the PO and examined the witnesses. It may be stated that after the death of the victim, the service of a Magistrate was requisitioned to conduct inquest on the dead body and in that connection, the Magistrate, who conducted the inquest, prepared a report which was proved as Ext. 5. In the course of investigation, I/O collected the post mortem examination report, did other needful and on the conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet u/s 498-A/302 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial.
9. The learned Magistrate before whom charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Session since the offence u/s 302 IPC in exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat on receipt of the case, on commitment, transferred the case to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat for disposal in accordance with law. On receipt of the case on transfer, learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges u/s 498-A/302 IPC and charges, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
10. During trial, prosecution has examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses including the informant, the M/O as well as the I/O of the case. The statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded. The accused plea was of total denial. He, however, submits that right
SupremeToday
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
