The dying declaration recorded by the police was not reliable as the sole evidence to convict the accused under Section 498(A) IPC. Major contradictions in witness statements raised doubts about the accused's culpability.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms P Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dulen Hati Baruah and Ms S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur, in connection with Sessions Case No. 80(NL)/2011, arising out of GR Case No. 572/2011, convicting the appellant under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short), to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. The appellant will hereinafter be referred to as the accused.

3. The genesis of the case was that on 05.05.2011, at about 10:00 pm, the accused set ablaze his wife Bornali Baruah by dousing her with kerosene. The victim Bornali Baruah (also referred to as the deceased or the victim) was immediately shifted to the North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital, but she succumbed to the burns sustained by her. While the victim was undergoing treatment, her mother Smt Munu Baruah lodged an FIR and GD Entry No. 167 dated 10.05.2011 was registered and the FIR was forwarded to North Lakhimpur Police Station and registered as NLPS Case No. 231/2011, under Section 498(A) IPC.

4. The Investigating Officer (IO, for short), Dinobandhu Bhuyan embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the victim and other witnesses. He went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the other witnesses and prepared the sketch map. Meanwhile, the victim succumbed to her injuries. The body was forwarded for autopsy. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused under Section 498(A)/302 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished and this case was committed for trial.

5. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed under Section 498(A)/302 IPC and the particulars of offence were read over and explained to the accused. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

6. To connect the accused to the crime, the prosecution adduced the evidence of five witnesses including the Medical Officer (MO, in short) and the accused adduced the evidence of one witness in defence. On the incriminating circumstances projected through the evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, for short). The tenor of the answers of the accused depicts a plea of total denial. He denied the charges and the evidence against him. He stated that his family was ostracized with allegations of incest. After atonement, his family was accepted by the society. The deceased caught fire from the lantern. He tried to extinguish the fire and sustained burns in the process. His cousin Tutu (DW-1) shifted his wife to the hospital.

7. The learned trial Court delineated the following points while deciding the case-

“i) Whether the accused being husband of Smt. Bornali Baruah subjected her to cruelty by wilful conduct which is of such nature as it is likely to drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger of life, limb or health of Bornali, setting her on fire by pouring kerosene on her body or harassed her with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet the demand of dowry ?

ii) Whether the accused did commit murder by intentionally (or knowingly) causing the death of his wife, Smti Bornali Baruah, by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene on her body, on demand of dowry on the relevant date, time and place?”

8. The learned trial Court held the accused guilty of offence under Section 498(A) IPC, but acquitted him from the charges under Section 302 IPC. The decision of this Court will be limited to the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, under which the accused was convicted. Here the scope of controversy appears to lie in a narrow campus i.e., within the point No. (i) taken up by the trial Court.

9. It is submitted by the learned counse