KAJAL NATH BHOWMIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the judgment and order dated 29.04.2019 delivered in Case No. ST(T-1) 11 of 2016 by the Sessions Judge, Khowai. By the said judgment dated 29.04.2019, the appellant has been convicted under section 326/302 of the IPC and consequently the appellant has been sentenced (1) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC. (2) to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. It has been also directed that those sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the appellant during investigation and trial, which according to the trial judge is 3 years 2 months and 26 days till the day of judgment i.e. 29.04.2019 from 02.02.2016, shall be set off.

(2.) The genesis of the prosecution can be located in the complaint (Exbt-1) dated 01.02.2016 filed by one Manju Debnath (PW-1) who had revealed to the officer-in-charge of Teliamura Police Station that her younger sister namely Rakhi Debnath (herein after referred to as the victim) was married to the appellant. On 01.02.2016 at about 6 pm she got the information that her younger sister was caught in fire and she sustained severe burn injuries on her person. At the time of occurrence, the victim and her husband (the appellant) were at home with their younger son. The elder son was with her mother for attending a kirtan. Thereafter, the complainant has stated in the complaint as follows:

(3.) Based on the said oral complaint (Exbt-1), Teliamura PS case No.17 of 2016 was registered under section 326 and 307 of the IPC at the time of filing the oral complaint the victim was alive. and taken up for investigation. On completing the investigation, the final police report was submitted charge-sheeting the appellant and sending him up to face the trial under Sections 326/307/302 consequent upon death of the victim succumbing to the burn injures. of the IPC. Having taken the cognizance in the due course, the police papers were committed to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai, as it then was. The Addl. Sessions Judge being the jurisdictional court. framed the charge under section 302 of the IPC only. The appellant did not accede to the charge. For denial of the charge by the appellant and on the face of his plea of innocence, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, adduced as many as 11 witnesses and admitted 7 documentary evidence including the dying declaration of the victim (Exbt-3) and the post mortem examination report (Exbt-7). After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the IPC when he restated his plea of innocence, but categorically denied that he tried to flee away from the place of occurrence. The appellant has further stated that the victim died succumbing to the burn injuries and the allegation as brought against him are all fabricated. Since the defence did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence as led by the prosecution, the trial judge after noting the arguments of the counsel appearing for the state and the accused, returned the finding of conviction by observing as under: