Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 565 (GAU)

Somen Patgiri v. State of Assam

2014-05-27

B.K.SHARMA, M.R.PATHAK

body2014
1. This appeal from jail is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No.110.2009, convicting the accused/appellant u/s 304(B) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Barpeta Road P.S Case No.166/2005 was registered u/s 304(B) of the IPC on the basis of the FIR that was lodged on 18.08.2005 by the PW-1. As alleged in the FIR, the accused/appellant had killed the deceased (wife) and her baby in a planned manner setting them at fire after pouring kerosene on her bed. The FIR also alleged the torture on the deceased on demand of dowry. The police carried out investigation and in due course submitted charge-sheet. 3. The accused/appellant having been charge sheeted, he was sent for trial. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The accused/appellant was also examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court having found the accused/appellant guilty of the offence u/s 304(B) IPC, passed the impugned judgment of conviction with the aforementioned sentence and being aggrieved, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal from jail. 4. We have heard Mr. A. Bora, learned Amicus Curie and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Mr. Bora, learned Amicus Curie has fairly submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, it cannot be said to be case of acquittal. Referring to the evidence on record, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that there is no material warranting any interference in respect of the impugned judgment of conviction. 5. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is found that the prosecution witnesses are unequivocal in their deposition about the commission of the offence by the accused/appellant. The learned trial Court examining the entire evidence on record and referring to the provisions of Section 304(B) IPC relating to dowry death has held the accused/appellant to be guilty of the said offence. It is seen that the PW-3 duly corroborated the statement of PW-1 in all essential particulars. There is evidence about dowry demand, which was the cause of death of the deceased along with her baby. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 7. There is evidence about dowry demand, which was the cause of death of the deceased along with her baby. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 7. Let the Lower Case Record be sent down along with the copy of this judgment and order. 8. While appreciating the service rendered by Mr. A. Bora, learned Amicus Curie, we hereby ordered for payment of hearing fee of Rs. 7,500/- to him by the Legal Services Authority upon production of the copy of this judgment and order. At the stage, Mr. A. Bora, learned Amicus Curie has expressed his desire that the hearing fee should go to the fund of the Legal Service Authority. It is ordered accordingly.