The conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable witness testimony and significant doubts raised by the delayed FIR, emphasizing the need for consistent and credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

2. This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Sri Sibu Sarkar under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 impugning the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2022 passed in Sessions Case No. 61/2017 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for another 6(six) months.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

i. That on 02.04.2017, one Sri Hemanta Biswas lodged an FIR(First Information Report) before the Officer-in-Charge of Rowta Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that his younger sister Smt. Mamani Sarkar was married to the present appellant since eight years before filing of the FIR and it is alleged in the FIR that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the present appellant for demand of dowry. It is also stated in the FIR that the family members of the wife of the present appellant also provided Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) only to the appellant, but he was not satisfied with the same and continued to torture the sister of the first informant. It is further alleged that, on 25.03.2017, at about 9:30 PM, the present appellant confined his wife inside the house and set her on fire by pouring kerosene over her and when the neighbours arrived there seeing the fire from outside, they broke open the close door and recovered the sister of the first informant, namely, Mamani Sarkar, who had sustained 90% burn injuries and she was immediately taken to the hospital. However, on 30.03.2017, the sister of the first informant succumbed to her injuries.

ii. On receipt of the said FIR, Rowta P.S. Case No. 36/2017 was registered under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, against the present appellant. Though the present appellant was arrested during the course of the investigation, however, on 22.08.2017, he was allowed to go on bail and thereafter, he faced the trial remaining on bail. Initially, on 22.08.2017, learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, after considering the materials on records and after hearing both the sides, framed charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. When the said charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, on 06.07.2018, in compliance to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rajbir Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “ (2010) 15 SCC 116,” learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri framed alternative charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant along with the charge which was already framed under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was read over and explained to the present appellant and on being asked he pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

iii. The prosecution side examined 13 witnesses to bring home the charges against the present appellant. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he pleaded his innocence and denied the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses against him. The appellant also adduced evidence of three defence witnesses in his defence.

iv. However, after completion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, by Judgment, which is impugned in his appeal has convicted and sentence the present appellant in the manner as already described in paragraph No. 2 of this j