ARJUN DEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. M. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. The sentence serving appellant takes on the judgment and order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions case No. 20(J)/03 whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year consecutively with the life imprisonment.

(2.) As per prosecution version the appellant was living with his wife in a rented house. They had spent conjugal life for 10 years. Issueless they are, no other person lived with them. On 3.10.2002 at about 7 AM, some neighbours having noticed smoke in the couple's rented house, rushed to enquire what had happened. When some neighbours knocked at the door, the appellant opened it to be found standing unconcerned near his wife who was already engulfed and being burnt by fire. The visiting neighbours by pouring water doused the fire and shifted the appellant's injured wife to hospital for treatment. As ill luck would have it, she succumbed to her 90% burn injuries on the same day. The brother of the deceased filed written FIR against the appellant alleging commission of murder on his sister. On the basis of the FIR, the police registered Jorhat P.S. Case No. 353/02 under Section 302 IPC. The I.O. during investigation visited the place of occurrence, interrogated/examined several persons, recorded statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., visited the injured in the hospital, recorded her dying declaration in presence of doctors and staff nurse of the hospital concerned. After collection of post mortem examination report, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. On receipt of the case records on committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant who, on being read over and explained of the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, examined 11 witnesses in all, including the I.O., M.O and Inquesting Magistrate. The appellant examined none in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident of murder. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence revealed from the deposition of some prosecution witnesses. Review on all the evidence of prosecution witnesses is an absolute necessity for arriving at a correct decision.