PUSPA RANI DEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

(2.) This is an appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.PC, challenging the Judgment dtd. 20/2/2020 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No. 187/2012, convicting the appellants under Ss. 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, for killing Pinky Dey w/o Sh. Raju Bhushan Dey by poisoning her.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that the informant/Prosecution Witness No. 2(PW-2) submitted an FIR dtd. 6/5/2010 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dholai Police Station stating that his daughter had been poisoned by (1) her husband Sh. Raju Bushan Dey (2) brother-in-law Sh. Ratan Dey (appellant) (3) Mother- in-law Pushpa Rani Dey (appellant), by forcibly administering her poison. In order to save her life, his daughter came to his residence and they took her to Silchar Medical College and Hospital. However, his daughter died. In pursuant to the FIR, Dholai PS case No. 86/2010 dtd. 6/5/2010 under Ss. 304(B)/34 IPC was registered against the above three accused persons. After investigation of the case was completed, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the husband, on finding a prima facie case against the husband of the deceased under Sec. 306 IPC. The Investigating Officer in his charge sheet however prayed for discharge of the appellants herein, who are the brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, on the ground that he could not find any evidence against them. However, the learned Trial Court thought it fit to proceed against the appellants herein and accordingly, charge was framed against all the three accused persons, including the two appellants herein under Sec. 306 IPC, vide Order dtd. 10/11/2014. Thereafter, vide Order dtd. 9/1/2015, charge under Ss. 302/34 IPC was framed against all the three accused persons by the learned Trial Court. Subsequent to the above, 13 prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court.