The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions to establish the culpability of the accused, including the absence of intention or knowledge to cause death and the doctrine of transferred malice.

This Criminal Appeal, No. 356/2023, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order, dated 07.07.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaon, in Sessions(T-1) Case No. 11/2016, under Section 302/307 IPC.

2. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned judgment and order, dated 07.07.2023, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaon, has convicted the accused/appellant - Shri Siteswar Das @ Tutu, u/s 304-A of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 2(two) years, with a fine of Rs.5000/ Rupees five thousand) with default stipulation and further convicted him u/s 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 7(seven) years with a fine of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) with default stipulation. Further, the learned court below has directed that sentence on both the counts shall run concurrently, and further directed that the period of detention, already undergone by the appellant shall be set off.

3. The background facts leading to filing of this Criminal Appeal are briefly stated as under:-

“Smti. Sumitra Das, the informant of this case, got married with the appellant Shri Siteswar Das @ Tutu, about seven years back. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife in Maisam (charaihagi) village. They were blessed with a child. Their relation was not cordial and right from the day of marriage, the appellant did not let her live in peace. Then on 21-10-2015, at around 4 p.m. the appellant, out of anger, dragged her and her daughter, namely, Miss Rimpi Das, forcibly to a distance of about 300 meters from their house, and thereafter, poured kerosene oil on their person and set them on fire and thereafter, went away from the spot. The fire engulfed the informant and her daughter instantly. And in spite of best effort, her daughter could not be saved and she died on the spot.

Thereafter, the informant had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Kachua Police Station on 22-10-2015, upon which the Officer-in-Charge, Kachua Police Station had registered a case, being Kachua Police Station Case No. 267/2015, u/s 302/307 IPC and endorsed S.I. Lithun Nath to investigate the same. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and got the post mortem done at Hospital and prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence and arrested the appellant and forwarded him to jail hazoot and thereafter, on completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the appellant to stand trial in the court, under Sections 302/307 IPC.

On commitment of the case by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, had transferred the case to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaon for disposal.

Thereafter, on 20-2-2016, on appearance of the appellant before the court, the learned Court below, after hearing the learned counsels of both sides, had framed following charges against the appellant u/s 302/307 IPC,

(i) Whether the appellant on 21-10-2015, at about 4 p.m., at village Maisam, under Kachua Police Station of Nagaon district, committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of his daughter Miss Rimpi Das and there by committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?

(ii) Whether the appellant on the same date, time and place, poured kerosene oil on Smti Sumitra Das and Miss Rimpi Das and set them on fire with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act had caused death of Smti. Sumitra Das and Miss Rimpi Das, he would be guilty of murder and by that act he caused hurt to Smti. Sumitra Das and there by committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC?

The charges above, having been read and explained over to the appellant, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution side has examined as many as 6(six) witnesses and exhibited 3(three) documents. After clos