Conviction must be based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence; lack of motive and conflicting witness statements create reasonable doubt dismissing the case.

Judgment :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 415 (2) of the BNS S] against the judgment dated 02.03.2020 and sentence dated 07.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 193(DM)/2017 under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ], thereby sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/. (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default, further imprisonment for 2 months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 05.10.2017 by the PW1, who is the maternal aunt of the victim. It has been alleged that the victim was married off to the accused about 5-6 years back and the accused used to torture her niece with regard to dowry since the marriage. On the said date, at about 8:00 AM, the accused person had poured kerosene on her niece and set her on fire with an intention to kill and at the time of lodging of the Ejahar, she was under treatment at the Hospital. It was also mentioned that as the parents of the victim were at Karnataka, she was compelled to lodge the Ejahar, as directed by them. In the said Ejahar, two persons were named as accused. After registration of the Ejahar, the investigation was done by the IO (PW9) in which the statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded, Post-Mortem Report collected and after completion of the formalities, the Charge Sheet was laid. The charges were accordingly framed under Sections 302 /304(B)/498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and on denial of the same, the trial had begun. It may be mentioned that though two persons were made accused in the Ejahar, the charges were framed against the present appellant only.

3. The prosecution had adduced evidence through 9 nos. of witnesses including the Doctor and the IO.

4. The informant was examined as PW1 who had stated that the marriage was held between the parties 5-6 years back and she was informed by her sister over phone regarding the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant. The PW1 was again called by telephone and the incident of setting ablaze the deceased was informed whereafter she had gone straight to the Police Station and had lodged the Ejahar. In the cross-examination, she had stated that the appellant (husband) and relatives took the deceased to the Hospital.

5. PW2 is the father of the victim who had stated that at 8:00 AM on the said date, the accused had informed him over phone regarding the incident. He had narrated that he did not know why the case was lodged against the appellant. He had stated that after the death of his daughter, he had married his other daughter Fatima to the appellant. He had also narrated that there were two sons of the parties who were aged about 6 years and 3 years. In the cross-examination, he had stated that he came to know from the villagers that the appellant was innocent and that the deceased had a bad temperament and used to beat herself. He had also stated that he did not find any fault with the appellant.

6. PW3 is the neighbour who had stated that the deceased had herself poured kerosene and set her ablaze. In the cross-examination, she had stated that at the time of the incident, the appellant was sitting on the road with her and the incide