Point of Law: Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Accused set deceased on fire with the intention to kill her - Plea of alibi - When presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence is established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-narrative to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound proposition that in such circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Lodh, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in case No. S.T. 08(GT/A) of 2016 (T-1), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment [RI, for short] for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-[Rupees ten thousand] for the offence committed under Section-302 of IPC and further to suffer RI for 5 years for the offence committed under Section-455 of IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/-[Rupees five thousand] with default stipulations.

2. Briefly stated, one Habil Miah lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-charge of Birganj Police Station, inter alia, stating that on 31.07.2015 at about 9.00 am when Hasina Begam was alone and watching TV, suddenly, Mubarak Sarkar, the accused-appellant herein, came out below the cot and gagged her mouth with his hands and put kerosene oil on her person setting her ablaze. She was almost completely burnt. Hearing hue and cry, her sister Dilwara Begam with her husband Khalil Miah had rushed to the spot. They took the victim to Amarpur Hospital wherefrom she was referred to Gomati Hospital and on 31.07.2015 at about 4.30 pm she was again referred to GBP Hospital. The victim was struggling with her life. The accused set Hasina Begam on fire with the intention to kill her.

3. Pursuant to this complaint, FIR No. 054 of 2015 was registered under Sections-455/326/307 of IPC. Being endorsed, Sub-inspector Bimalendu Saha started investigation. However, on 04.08.2015 the victim succumbed to her injuries and the Investigating Officer [I.O., for short] made a prayer for adding Section-302 of IPC which was allowed. Two dying declarations were recorded by two doctors during the treatment of the victim-firstly, on 31.07.2015 at about 2.30 pm at District Hospital, Gomati, by the Medical Officer, Dr. Umakanta Acharjee (PW-18) and secondly, on the same day at about 8.05 pm at AGMC & GBP Hospital, by the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Agartala, namely, ITakshiray Debbarma (PW-15) in presence of Dr. Goutam Debbarma, who certified that the victim was mentally fit to give statements.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Sections-455/302 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, Gomati District and the same was transferred to the Court of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge to conduct the trial. On receipt of the record, charges were framed against the accused-appellant under Sections-455/302 of IPC and the contents were read over, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution had examined as many as 22 numbers of witnesses and at the closer of recording evidences by the prosecution side, the accused-appellant was examined under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. and when he was being noticed about all the incriminating evidences and mitigating circumstances as surfaced from the evidence and materials on record, he denied all the allegations leveled against him as false. The accused-appellant also adduced 9(nine) witnesses in support of his defence case.

6. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution and defence evidences returned a finding of guilt against the accused and convicted & sentenced him as afore-stated. This judgment and conviction has been assailed by the convict-appellant by way of presenting the instant appeal before us.

7. We have heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

8. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant would contend that there is no cogent evidence about appellant’s involvement in the crime in question.