IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction in criminal trials requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 115(JN)/2015 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 / 447 / 324 / 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- i/d RI for another 2 months under Section 302 IPC ; RI for four years and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d for one month under Section 326 IPC ; RI for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d for another one month under Section 324 IPC and RI for one month under Section 447 IPC with default clauses.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 19.04.2013 by one Nagen Karmakar (PW-1) wherein it was stated that on the earlier evening at 8.30 PM, the two accused persons namely, Lal Mohan Das (appellant) and Sanjib Gupta had illegally entered into the residential compound and threw a bottle containing petrol like inflammatory substance through the open window of the kitchen which came into contact with a burning lamp causing a huge fire in which the inmates had suffered grievous burn injury. In the said injury, his granddaughter Archana Karmakar and wife Renu Karmakar had died and the others were taken for treatment. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was laid. As the offence involved were Sessions triable, the matter was committed to the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. Charges were framed and on its denial by the accused persons, the trial had begun.

3. The prosecution had adduced evidence through 8 nos. of prosecution witness (PWs).

4. The Informant had adduced evidence as PW-1 who proved the Ejahar. As per his version, on the fateful evening after having dinner when it was drizzling outside, he was sitting on the verandah of the house when the other members of the family were having dinner in the kitchen. At that time, the two accused persons including the present appellant had came and threw a bottle of petrol inside the kitchen through the window. It has been stated that the present appellant had threw the bottle and accused Sanjib Gupta was with him whereafter the fire had started causing grievous injuries and death to his wife and granddaughter. He had stated that he could distinctly see from the verandah both the accused running away. In the cross-examination, he had clarified that he had his dinner before the rest of the family and was sitting at the verandah at the time of occurrence.

5. PW-2 is the Doctor, who had treated the members of the family who had suffered from burn injuries. He had separately examined the victims namely, Sweety Karmakar, Raj Kumar Karmakar, Umananda Karmakar and Parul Karmakar. There is however no mention of any other victims that he had treated or brought before him.

6. PW-3 is Dipak Karmakar, who is the son of the informant and deposed that at the relevant time, he was not at home and had heard a blast coming from their home and accordingly rushed home and found his mother and his daughter Archana in a burnt condition. He also deposed that while coming home he saw the two accused persons running away. He has also deposed that in the year 2013 his father had filed a case against the accused persons as they had assaulted his father in which he was hurt in the head. He has also deposed that subsequently during the trial, his wife had also died.

7. PW-4 is the Gaonburah of the concerned village, who however had deposed that at the relevant time, accused Sanjib Gupta and his wife were at his house in connection with PAN card. At that time, they could hear that the house of the informant was on fire and he had accordingly informed the concerned Police Station.

8. PW-5 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem of