Dhanjit Talukdar, S/o. Late Gandha Talukdar vs State Of Assam, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Assam

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Gau) 940

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Suman Shyam, Parthivjyoti Saikia, JJ.
Dhanjit Talukdar, S/o. Late Gandha Talukdar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Rep. by The Public Prosecutor, Assam & Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A. No. 147 Of 2021
Decided On : 19-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.C. Pandit.
For the Respondents: Ms. S. Jahan.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 304(B)/34, 498(A), 326/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Offence of murder – Dowry death – Dying declaration – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Power to examine the accused – Appeal is directed against judgement passed by learned Sessions Judge, in connection with Sessions Case convicting both appellants for committing murder of deceased and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine each with default stipulation – Held, Court do not find anything to indicate that there is a finding of common intent on part of both appellants to set victim on fire nor is there any finding ascribing specific role to both appellants in committing an offence under section 302 IPC – However, on a reading of those decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Court find that those judgements were rendered in facts of those cases and, same in our considered opinion, would not have any relevant bearing in facts and circumstances of present case – For reasons stated herein above, Court affirm conviction and sentence awarded to appellant No. 1 by learned trial Court – Court, however, set aside conviction of appellant No. 2 Smt. and give her acquittal on benefit of doubt – Court are informed that Smt – She be released forthwith, if her custody is not required in connection with any other case – Ordered Accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

(Suman Shyam, J.)

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State and Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 10/03/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, in connection with Sessions Case No. 54/2014 convicting both the appellants for committing the murder of deceased Arati Talukdar and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is to the effect that about a year before the incident, deceased Arati Talukdar got married to the appellant/accused no.1 Dhanjit Talukdar, following a love affair between them. After the marriage, the accused persons used to torture Arati Talukdar in connection with dowry. On 22/01/2013, at about 9-30 p.m., the accused persons had an argument with the victim over dowry and then, they had set her ablaze by pouring ‘Kerosene Oil” on her body. The victim was immediately shifted to the hospital in an unconscious state. She died after 7 (seven) days while receiving treatment in the hospital.

4. On 23/01/2013, the younger brother of the victim, viz. Sri Champak Bora had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Mukalmua Police Station reporting the incident. In the ejahar, 4 (four) accused persons, viz. Sri Dhanjit Talukdar, (2) Sri Gondho Talukdar, (3) Ms. Anila Talukdar and (4) Ms. Marami Talukdar were shown as the accused persons. On receipt of the ejahar, GD entry No. 421 dated 23/01/2023 was made and Mukalmua PS case No. 19/2013 was registered under sections 498(A)/326/34 of IPC. After the death of the victim, Section 304(B) IPC was added. The matter was then taken up for investigation and on completion of investigation, Police had submitted charge sheet against three accused persons, viz. Sri Dhanjit Talukdar, Sri Gondho Talukdar and Smt. Anila Talukdar under section 304(B)/34 of IPC but accused Marami Talukdar was not sent up for trial.

5. As it was a case triable by the Sessions Court, the matter was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Nalbari .The learned trial Court had framed charges against all the accused persons under sections 302/304(B)/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. Since they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. It appears from the record that during the course of trial, one of the appellants, viz. Gondho Talukdar i.e. the father-in-law had expired and, therefore, the proceeding abated against him.

6. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and dying declarations of the victim. The prosecution had examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses to bring home the charges. We find that the evidence adduced by the PWs – 1, 4, 7 and 10 have been heavily relied upon by the learned trial Court for convicting the appellants. The learned Court below had also relied upon the written “dying declaration” (Ext-2) as well as the oral “dying declaration” of the victim brought on record by the informant (PW-1) to convict the appellants/accused persons.

7. As noted above, Sri Champak Bora (PW-1) i.e. the brother of the victim is the informant in this case. He has deposed before the Court that accused Dhanjit Talukdar is the husband of his deceased elder sister Arati Talukdar and accused Gondho Talukdar and Smt. Anila Talukdar are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased. The incident took place about two years back. There was love affair between his elder sister Arati and accused Dhanjit Talukdar and their marriage was solemnized about 9-10 months before the incident. On the date of the occurrence, at about 9-30 p.m., the Headman of the village in which the accused persons live in, had in