The court affirmed the conviction for murder and dowry death, establishing a proximate link between dowry-related cruelty and the victim's death.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Choudhury, J.)

The instant appeal from jail is directed against a Judgment dated 16.03.2018 and an Order of Sentence dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar [‘the trial court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 25[N]/2016. By the said Judgment dated 16.03.2018, the accused-appellant has been found guilty of both the charges framed for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’, for short] and Section 304B[2], IPC. Thereafter, by the Order of Sentence dated 19.03.2018, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further 4 [four] months for the offence under Section 302, IPC. For the offence under Section 304B[2], IPC, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the investigation was set into motion on receipt of a First Information Report [‘FIR’, for short] from one Smti. Sathi Nag before the Officer In-Charge, Hojai Police Station on 17.01.2016. In the said FIR, three persons including the accused-appellant, were named as accused. The accused-appellant was the husband of one Jhuma Paul, who was the daughter of the informant, Smti. Sathi Nag. The other two accused persons named in the FIR were the mother and the sister-in-law respectively of the accused-appellant.

3. In the FIR, the informant had inter alia alleged that her daughter was leading her conjugal life with the accused-appellant in a tenanted room at Govindapalli, Hojai for about last two years. It was alleged that the accused-appellant used to torture the daughter of the informant, both physically and mentally, demanding dowry. Unable to bear the brunt of torture meted out to her by the accused-appellant, the daughter of the informant had to take shelter in the house of the informant along with her 14 months old child about two months earlier. By specifically mentioning about the incident, the informant stated that at around 6-00 p.m. on 16.01.2016, the accused-appellant came to the house of the informant. Promising that he would not subject the daughter of the informant to any kind of torture, the accused- appellant stayed for that night in the house of the informant. But at around 12-30 a.m. on 17.01.2016, the accused-appellant strangled the daughter of the informant on bed and the informant witnessed the said incident. The informant further alleged that the other two accused persons named in the FIR were indirectly involved for the incident.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Hojai Police Station registered the same on 17.01.2016 as Hojai Police Station Case no. 15/2016 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 97/2016] for the offence under Sections 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC and investigation of the case was entrusted to one Sri Nokul Phukan, a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Hojai Police Station.

5. The Investigating Officer [‘I.O.’, for short] of the case during the course of the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure [‘Cr.P.C.’ or ‘the Code’, for short]. The I.O. of the case also visited the place of occurrence; prepared a Sketch Map and seized certain items by a Memorandum of Seizure. The I.O. of the case through an Executive Magistrate conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, that is, the daughter of the informant on 17.01.2016 and thereafter, forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination at the B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon wherein the post-mortem examination was performed on 17.01.2016. The accused-appellant was arrested on the date of the incident itself. The I.O. of the case after completing the investigation of the case, submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], Cr