The prosecution must provide all opportunities for the accused to prove innocence, and the court should consider inherent weaknesses in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.05.2019 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 120(BGN)/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and 498(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default further imprisonment of 1 (one) month under Section 498(A) IPC, on the ground that the appellant had killed his wife by pouring kerosene over her and setting her on fire.

3. The Prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 03.04.2010 was submitted by Prosecution Witness No.4 (PW-4), who is the mother of the deceased victim and mother-in-law of the appellant at 10:30 p.m. The FIR is to the effect that the appellant used to torture the deceased demanding dowry. It further states that on 02.04.2010, PW-4 came to learn that the appellant had demanded Rs.10,000/-in cash from the deceased. As the deceased refused to give money to the appellant, the appellant poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire at around 2 p.m, with an intention to kill her. The FIR further states that the deceased was undergoing treatment at Dangtol Railway Hospital and that PW-4 was thinking of taking her to a nursing home in Coochbehar for better treatment. In pursuance to the FIR, Bongaigaon P.P. GDE No.59 dated 03.04.2010 and Bongaigon P.S. Case No.136/2010 under Section 498(A) IPC was registered.

4. After completion of the investigation, the First Investigating Officer (PW6) submitted the Charge-sheet, on having come to a prima facie finding that the appellant was guilty of having committed an offence under Section 302/498(A) IPC. Charges under Section 302 and 498(A) IPC were thereafter framed against the appellant, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the trial proceedings before the learned Trial Court, 8 (eight) Prosecution witnesses were examined. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he denied having any involvement in the death of his wife. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having murdered his wife, by setting her on fire and also came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and 498(A) IPC and sentenced accordingly, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that a reading of the evidence of the witnesses and the other documents on record, would go to show that there were discrepancies, not only with regard to date of death of the deceased, but also with regard to the time of death of the deceased. He also submits that the prosecution has deliberately not exhibited the Inquest Report, which had been made in Coochbehar, as the same would have contradicted the contents of the FIR and would also show that the prosecution case against the appellant was a fabricated case.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that though the deceased had been undergoing treatment in Dangtol Railway Hospital for around 30 hours, before being taken to Coochbehar for treatment, the prosecution has not produced any doctor of the Dangtol Railway Hospital as a witness, nor produced any medical certificate, with regard to the treatment given to the deceased in Dangtol Railway Hospital, Bongaigaon. He also submits that the maker/author of the Inquest Report in Coochbehar was not made a prosecution witness and examined in the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that PW-2 and PW-3 had clearly stated in their evidence, that the incident of setting the decease