Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 15 (GAU)

Sanjit Nayak @ Sanjib v. State of Assam

2017-01-03

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The sole appellant Sanjit Nayak @ Sanjib has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulations for causing the death of his wife Abanti Mirdha. 2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 10/11 PM of 26.05.2012 at Kuhepara Tea Estate, the appellant set his wife Abanti Mirdha on fire by pouring kerosene oil and thereafter carried her with severe burnt injuries to her mother's place Smti. Ranjabati Mirdha (PW-1). By leaving Abanti on the doorstep, the appellant fled away. Abanti succumbed to the burnt injuries and was declared brought dead at the hospital on the following morning. Ejahar (Ext.-3) was lodged by Abanti's mother (PW-1) on 28.05.2012 and the same was registered as Katigorah P.S. Case No. 215/2012 under Section 304B of the IPC. Anowar Hussain Choudhury (PW-7) carried out the investigation and prepared the Inquest Report, recorded the statement of witnesses and also arrested the appellant. Autopsy was done on Abanti. Upon completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to trial. 3. For reaching a decision as to whether on 26.05.2012 at about 10/11 PM the appellant had intentionally caused the death of Abanti Mirdha by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene oil, the testimony of 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses were taken into consideration, including the testimony of the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. Judgment was delivered by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 4. Smti Ranjabati Mirdha (PW-1) deposed as the informant and mother of Abanti. She stated that her daughter got married to the appellant about 2/3 years ago and out of their marriage, a son was born to them who subsequently died. She also stated that on the issue that the appellant wanted to enter into a second marriage, Abanti's objection was not taken in good stead and she was subjected to torture. Further, on the fateful night at about 11 PM when they were sleeping, she heard her daughter raising alarm and asking her to open the door. She also stated that on the issue that the appellant wanted to enter into a second marriage, Abanti's objection was not taken in good stead and she was subjected to torture. Further, on the fateful night at about 11 PM when they were sleeping, she heard her daughter raising alarm and asking her to open the door. On opening the door, she saw burn injuries on the entire body of Abanti who reported that her husband had tied her hands and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire. According to PW-1, Abanti was in the house of her husband i.e. the appellant at the time of the incident. After Abanti received burn injuries, the appellant brought her to the doorsteps of the house of PW-1 and keeping her there he fled away. Abanti was taken to Kalain Hospital on the following morning with the help of her neighbours Smti Sefali Mirdha (PW-2) and one Sri Gopen Nayak, who is a Garden Panchayat Member. According to PW-1, Abanti succumbed to her injuries at 11 AM at the hospital and while she was being taken to the hospital, Abanti was in a position to speak and she had also narrated the incident to Smti Sefali Mirdha, Sri Sankar Goala and other persons of the Tea Estate. On cross, PW-1 deposed that the distance between her house and that of the house of the appellant is about one mile and there are many houses in between located at distant places. PW-1 also deposed that after the death of the child, Abanti had become mentally depressed and used to remain aloof after her son's death. 5. Smti Sefali Mirdha (PW-2) deposed to the extent that she saw burn injuries on the entire body of Abanti and on being asked, Abanti told them that her husband i.e. the appellant had set fire on her body in her matrimonial house. Contrary to the testimony of PW-1, Sefali stated that in the morning, the Garden Panchayat Member Gopen Nayak (PW-5) along with the mother of Abanti i.e. PW-1 had taken Abanti to the Kalain Hospital. 6. The deposition of the other witnesses, except the official witnesses, are to the extent of having witnessed burn injuries on Abanti and the steps taken for taking her to the hospital where she was declared as brought dead. 7. Medical evidence brought on record through Dr. 6. The deposition of the other witnesses, except the official witnesses, are to the extent of having witnessed burn injuries on Abanti and the steps taken for taking her to the hospital where she was declared as brought dead. 7. Medical evidence brought on record through Dr. Y.N. Singh (PW-6) is to the extent that death was caused to Abanti due to Hypovolaemic shock following ante mortem dry flame burn which covered 80% of the total body surface area. The Post Mortem Report (Ext.-2) was proved by the PW-6. Save and except the burn injuries, no other physical injury was found on the dead body of Abanti. The Post Mortem Report also recorded that the burnt areas were found rived by a red line of inflammation with prominent smell of kerosene on the body. 8. Upon examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, he admitted to the burn injuries found on the body of Abanti. He also stated that he had carried Abanti and left her outside the house of PW-1. He stated that he is innocent and, in fact, Abanti had committed suicide. He had taken Abanti to her mother's place to arrange for medical aid but he fled from there out of fear of being subjected to public wrath. 9. The circumstances which led to the conviction of the appellant, in the opinion of the trial Court, were that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 made it abundantly clear that Abanti was subjected to torture by the appellant since the time after her marriage. Also, Abanti received burn injuries in the house of the appellant where there were no other members in the house. Further, according to the PW-1, the appellant had brought Abanti to her house in a critical burnt condition and left her at the doorsteps of the house and then fled away from the scene. That it was not a case of suicidal death, the trial Court relied upon the circumstances that Abanti had cried for help to save her life. The smell of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased was also taken into consideration along with the testimony of the Investigating Officer who stated that he got the smell of kerosene but did not find any container at the place of occurrence. The trial Court opined that had it been a case of suicide the container would have been left there. The trial Court opined that had it been a case of suicide the container would have been left there. The appellant who was the only member in the house may have removed the container etc. from the place of occurrence before the arrival of the Police. Another circumstance relied upon is that it was the duty of the appellant to explain how Abanti had received burn injuries or why she was not taken to the hospital although Abanti survived for the whole night and cried for her life. Also, the appellant failed to explain why he fled from the scene without making any arrangement for the treatment of Abanti. On the above circumstances, the trial Court held that the prosecution could successfully establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt in causing the death of his wife by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene oil. 10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the entire evidence on record. Apparently, there is not an iota of direct evidence that the appellant had poured kerosene on the body of Abanti and had set her on fire. The element of Abanti being subjected to torture by the husband and the beatings on her person are not substantiated by any documentary evidence. Even on the date when autopsy was conducted, the Medical Officer (PW-6) did not record detection of any other physical injuries on the body of Abanti. The cause of death and reason for fleeing from the doorstep of the house of PW-1 has been duly explained by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. He admits to the burn injury sustained by Abanti and also having carried her to the house of PW-1 with further statement that Abanti had committed suicide and he fled because of fear of being subjected to public wrath. Indeed, Abanti suffered burn injuries in the secrecy of the house of the appellant and under such circumstances, the appellant is legally obliged to give suitable explanation as to the cause of death. Such explanation has been duly made by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. 11. Indeed, Abanti suffered burn injuries in the secrecy of the house of the appellant and under such circumstances, the appellant is legally obliged to give suitable explanation as to the cause of death. Such explanation has been duly made by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. 11. The trial Court while holding that it was not a case of suicidal death, failed to ignore one vital evidence that had come on record in the testimony of Smti Ranjabati Mirdha (PW-1), who is the mother of Abanti. The trial Court failed to consider that PW-1 stated that after the death of the child, Abanti had become mentally depressed and she used to remain aloof after her son's death. The state of mind of Abanti, which was not at a too distance of time, did not receive any consideration. Had it been considered and having regard to the statements made by the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, the view taken by the trial Court would have substantially changed. 12. The circumstances relied upon to convict the appellant do not form a complete chain to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In criminal jurisprudence, conviction cannot be based on suspicions, however grave it may be. Moral conviction is also not recognised under the law of the land. The evidence on record do not show that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The facts and circumstances of the case compels this Court to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 13. Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith.