JUDGMENT : MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, J. 1. This appeal from jail has been preferred by the accused appellant Sri Ananda Sonowal @ Bhaikon being aggrieved with the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 138 (T) of 2014, arising out of G.R. Case No. 318/2014, corresponding to Bordubi Police Station Case No. 15/2014, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for another 1 (one) month. 2. Heard Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Amicus Curie for the appellant and Ms. Barnali Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 2, informant of the case, inspite of receipt of notice of the case, did not appear in the matter. 3. We have perused the case record. It is seen from the records of the case that on the night of 21.02.2014 around 11:45 pm, the informant Basanta Mech, son of late Bhigu Mech, resident of Bazaloni Tamulikhat Gaon of Tinsukia District appeared at Langkashi Outpost under Bordubi Police Station with his married daughter Junmoni Sonowal, with burnt injuries on her person. Said Basanta Mech verbally informed the authorities of the said Outpost that his daughter Junmoni Sonowal, who resides with her husband near them, was set on fire by her husband Ananda Sonowal @ Bhaikon, and that she was recovered by her neighbour. Finding that the victim Junmoni Sonowal sustained burnt injuries, the authority concerned of the said Outpost gave necessary medical requisition so as to provide medical facilities to the said victim at Tinsukia Civil Hospital. Said information of Basanta Mech was registered as Langkashi Outpost G.D. Entry No. 322 dated 21.02.2014. 4. The authorities of Tinsukia Civil Hospital received the said victim Junmoni Sonowal around 12:40 am on 22.02.2014, but considering the condition of her health, the victim was immediately referred to the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh (AMCH, in short), for her treatment. Though the victim was admitted at AMCH on 22.02.2014 itself, but she expired on 22.02.2014 around 06:15 am. Though the victim was admitted at AMCH on 22.02.2014 itself, but she expired on 22.02.2014 around 06:15 am. The authorities of AMCH on 22.02.2014 itself informed the In-Charge of Borbari Outpost, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, that the victim on 22.02.2014 around 06:15 died due to 70% mixed flame burn injuries and requested the said authority to do the needful, which was registered as Borbari Outpost G.D. Entry No. 590 dated 22.02.2014. 5. On the basis of said G.D. Entry No. 590 dated 22.02.2014, the authorities of Borbari Outpost conducted the inquest on the person of the deceased Junmoni Sonowal at AMCH premises in presence of a Magistrate, concerned professor of the Department of Forensic Medicine of AMCH and other witnesses. During such inquest of the deceased, burn injuries on her head, face, chest, stomach and on her both hands were detected (Exhibit-4). Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was forwarded with necessary challan to the concerned department of the AMCH for its post mortem examination. On 22.02.2014 itself post mortem examination was conducted on the person of the deceased and accordingly the necessary post mortem examination report (Exhibit-1) was made. In connection with said Borbari Outpost G D Entry No. 590 dated 22.02.2014, the authorities of said Outpost also recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case at AMCH itself. 6. On 22.02.2014, said Basanta Mech (PW-1), father of the deceased Junmoni Sonowal, as informant, submitted a written FIR before the In-Charge of Langkashi Outpost, Tinsukia District informing that around 10:30 pm on 21.02.2014 his daughter Smti. Junmoni Sonowal, while in the house of her husband that is near to his house was found burning and she was crying for help and neighbours recovered her. Though she was admitted at Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital but she expired around 06:00 am. In the said FIR dated 22.02.2014, informant Basanta Mech (PW-1) also stated that on enquiring about the incident from the victim, i.e., his daughter, it was learnt that it was her husband Ananda Sonowal who poured kerosene on her body and burnt her and that since then said Ananda Sonowal had fled away from that place. The informant accordingly prayed before the authorities to enquire into the matter and to take necessary action. 7. The informant accordingly prayed before the authorities to enquire into the matter and to take necessary action. 7. The said FIR of the informant Basanta Mech was received by Langkashi Outpost on 22.02.2014 around 10:30 am and entered it as G.D. Entry No. 329 dated 22.02.2014 and forwarded it to the Bordubi Police Station for necessary registration. On receipt of the said FIR of the informant Basanta Mech dated 22.02.2014 by Bordubi Police Station on Bordubi on 23.2.2014, it was registered as Bordubi Police Station Case No. 15/2014 under Section 302 IPC (Exhibit-2) (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 318/2014) and it was entrusted to the concerned In-charge of Langkashi Out-Post for investigation who had already initiated the investigation of the said case. 8. In the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer (I.O., in short) visited the place of occurrence, drawn its sketch map (Exhibit-5), seized a plastic container containing about half litre of kerosene, a match box and one partially burnt bed cover in presence of witnesses, preparing Seizure Memo/List – M.R. No. 06/2014 (Exhibit-3); recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses acquainted with the case under Section 161 CrPC and arrested the accused of the case Ananda Sonowal on 23.02.2014. After collecting the inquest report of the deceased from Borbari Outpost of Dibrugarh District and her post-mortem report from the AMCH, Dibrugarh (Exhibit-1), respectively and on completion of the investigation, finding a prima facie case, the concerned I.O. of said Bordubi PS Case No. 15/2014 14 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 318/2014) submitted the charge sheet of said police case under Section 173 CrPC vide No. 21/2014 dated 29.03.20 under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant (Exhibit-8). 9. As the offence alleged under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Tinsukia by order dated 16.05.2014 committed the said G.R. Case No. 318/2014 (arising out of Bordubi PS Case No. 15/2014) to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, wherein it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 138(T)/2014. On 29.05.2014 Learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in said Sessions Case No. 138(T)/2014 framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant for committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal by setting her on fire on 21.02.2014 around 10:30 pm. On 29.05.2014 Learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in said Sessions Case No. 138(T)/2014 framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant for committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal by setting her on fire on 21.02.2014 around 10:30 pm. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused, i.e., the appellant herein, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial of the case began. 10. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution adduced sixteen witnesses from its side before the Trial Court including the autopsy doctor as well as the investigating officer and also exhibited relevant documents/ materials. However, the defence did not adduce any evidence, but cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. On conclusion of the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded by the Trial Court on 19.02.2015 during which though the learned Trial Judge asked him, he refused to give evidence from his side. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned judgment and conviction on 13.03.2015 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal and sentenced him with imprisonment for life and with fine. 11. Mr. Sunil Agarwal learned Amicus Curie for the appellant submitted that there are inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 302 IPC against the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also submitted by said Amicus Curie that as the evidence of the child witness being not properly corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court committed illegality in convicting the accused appellant and therefore, he needs to be acquitted. 12. However, Ms. Barnali Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam on the other hand submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 138 (T) of 2014 arising out of Bordubi Police Station Case No. 15/2014 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 318/2014) on proper scrutiny of the evidence as well as the exhibits adduced by the prosecution, rightfully convicted the accused/appellant and as such, the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 13.03.2015 need not be interfered with. 13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions made on behalf of the appellant/accused and the State, let us go through the evidence on record. 14. PW-1, Dr. 13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions made on behalf of the appellant/accused and the State, let us go through the evidence on record. 14. PW-1, Dr. Tapan Das, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine at Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh with regard to external appearance of the deceased, he found an average built female dead body covered with surgical bandage on chest, abdomen, both upper limbs, right thigh etc, smell of kerosene present on the body, singing of scalp hair with rigor mortis all over her body. Said doctor found the following injuries while conducting the postmortem examination on the person of deceased: (1) Epidermal to dermo-epidermal flame burn injuries on the upper part of the face above the level of tip of nose, neck, front and back of chest and abdomen, both upper limbs up to the level of wrists, front and lateral aspect of right thigh, both buttocks. (2) Charring and blackening of skin at places on burnt areas. (3) Zone of hyperaemia present on the burnt areas, adjacent to the healthy tissues. (4) Burn injuries were epidermal to dermo-epidermal and cover approximately 65% of total body surface area. During said post-mortem examination on her, no burn injuries were detected over scalp, lower half of face, hands, palms, medial aspect of right thigh, back of the lower limbs, right leg, feet and soles, perineum on the person of the deceased and that her other organs were found congested. The Autopsy Doctor opined that time since death of the deceased was six to twelve hours and that the death of the deceased was due to shock resulting from ante mortem flame burn injuries, which covered approximately 65% of her total body surface area. He also opined that as there was no injury on the hands of the deceased, there was possibility that either the hands were covered or the person did not try to protect herself. PW-1 identified Exhibit-1, the Postmortem Examination Report of the deceased as well as his signature on it and also the signature of one Dr. Rupak Gogoi, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, who endorsed the said PM Report, concurring the said findings. During his cross examination by the defence, PW-1 stated that it takes four hours to develop rigor mortis in the whole body on a dead person. 15. Rupak Gogoi, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, who endorsed the said PM Report, concurring the said findings. During his cross examination by the defence, PW-1 stated that it takes four hours to develop rigor mortis in the whole body on a dead person. 15. PW-2, Basanta Mech, informant of the case, in his evidence deposed that the deceased Junmoni Sonowal was his daughter whereas the accused was her husband and that his grandson, son of his deceased daughter and the accused Ananda Sonowal @ Bhaikon, came to his house around 10:30 PM on 21.02.2014 with Ridip Sonowal (PW-11) and informed them that his mother, i.e., daughter of the informant had been burnt to death by his father. On receiving the said information, the PW-2 immediately went to the house of the accused and saw his daughter in burnt condition. On being asked, the victim told PW-2 that it is the accused, her husband, who poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Said PW-2, along with his wife (PW-6) and his sister, took the said victim, Junmoni Sonowal i.e., his daughter to the AMCH at Dibrugarh wherein the said victim succumbed to her injuries on 22.02.2014. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR (Exhibit-2). Said PW-2 identified his signature on the said FIR and also deposed that the said FIR was scribed by another person whom he did not remember but it was his brother Birendra Mech (PW-3) who gave the details to be written in the FIR and that the said FIR was read over to him. He further deposed that his grandson also known as Raktim. During his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that about 13 years back his daughter eloped with the accused and then they got married and after their marriage she resided with the accused at Laina Gaon and that the place of occurrence was about half kilometre from his house. He also stated that the incident took place during winter season and that there was electricity in the house of the accused. He also stated that the incident took place during winter season and that there was electricity in the house of the accused. Said PW-2 in his cross-examination also stated that his grandson came to his house along with Tetera Mech on the day of occurrence and after getting the said information it was his wife who first went to the house of the accused within 10 minutes and thereafter he went there and saw his injured daughter lying on the floor in the middle room in the kitchen. PW-2 further stated that at first his daughter was taken to Tinsukia Civil Hospital and then she was shifted to Dibrugarh Medical, but he did not went with her to Dibrugarh that it was his wife, his nephew and daughter of his sister went to AMCH, Dibrugarh along with his injured daughter. He stated that he saw tongue of his daughter was burnt for which she could not speak clearly and that her hairs were also burnt and that she was not in a position to open her eyes. PW-2 denied the suggestion that his daughter did not state before him that the accused, her husband had set fire on her. He stated that the accused and his daughter were residing in Tamulikhat Gaon for the last five years. 16. PW-3, Biren Mech is a reported witness as well as seizure witness. In his evidence the PW-3 deposed that the deceased was his niece, her house was about 200 metres from his house that police visited the house of the deceased on the next day of the incident and from its kitchen they recovered one empty five litre plastic container, some match sticks and one bed cover that was partially burnt. He proved the Seizure Memo Exhibit-3 and identified his signature on it. During his cross-examination, Biren Mech PW-3 stated that before he entered the kitchen of the deceased, police were already present and that police did not record his statement. He also stated that he did not visit Dibrugarh to see the deceased. 17. He proved the Seizure Memo Exhibit-3 and identified his signature on it. During his cross-examination, Biren Mech PW-3 stated that before he entered the kitchen of the deceased, police were already present and that police did not record his statement. He also stated that he did not visit Dibrugarh to see the deceased. 17. PW-4, Manorama Mech, wife of Biren Mech (PW-3) in her evidence deposed that on the day of occurrence around 10:30 pm while she was at her house, she heard Anil Mech (brother of the deceased) saying that Junmoni (deceased) sustained burnt injuries and on hearing it she immediately rushed to the house of the deceased, wherein she found 6 to 7 persons already present in the place of occurrence. However, she did not find the accused Ananda Sonowal, i.e., husband of the deceased in that place. She also deposed that by the time she reached the place of occurrence she found that flames on the body of the victim were doused/put off, her entire body was burnt, she was laid on the ground in the court yard of her house. When she asked the victim, in presence of Raktim, i.e., minor son of the victim (PW-11), the victim stated that her husband set fire on her by pouring kerosene. PW-4 further deposed that after arranging a vehicle the victim was taken to hospital and that the minor son of the victim (PW-11) told them that his mother was set on fire by his father. PW-4 stated that she heard that the accused fled away from his house by telling his son that he would bring a vehicle. During her cross-examination PW-4 denied the suggestion of the defence that she did not state before police what she had stated in her evidence-in-chief. 18. PW-5, Namita Mech, wife of Anil Mech, in her evidence deposed that the deceased Junmoni was her sister-in-law who was set on fire by the accused pouring kerosene on her and that she was informed about the incident by the father of the deceased (Basanta Mech, PW-2). PW-5 also deposed that after getting the information she rushed to the house of the deceased, found many persons gathered in the place of occurrence including the mother of the deceased (PW-6) and that she did not find the husband of the victim in said place of occurrence. PW-5 also deposed that after getting the information she rushed to the house of the deceased, found many persons gathered in the place of occurrence including the mother of the deceased (PW-6) and that she did not find the husband of the victim in said place of occurrence. PW-5 further deposed that when she asked Junmoni, the victim in her broken voice and through her gesture indicated that it was her husband, i.e., the accused who set fire on her by pouring kerosene and that the victim could not say further because of severe burnt injuries. PW-5 in her cross-examination stated that the house of the deceased was about 250 meters away from them. She also stated that her statement was recorded by police and she denied the suggestion made by the defence that she did not state the above before police. PW-5 during her cross-examination also stated that when she reached the house of the deceased, she found the victim lying outside her house on the lap of her mother and that the deceased sustained burnt injuries on her face as well as other parts of her body. 19. PW-6, Bimala Mech, mother of the deceased and wife of Basanta Mech, PW-2/informant of the case, in her evidence deposed that Junmoni, the deceased died in the month of February, 2014 and that house her said daughter was about 200 metres from their house. She also deposed that on the night of the incident around 10:00 PM her grandson Raktim @ Ridip (PW-11) came to their house and requested her to come to his house immediately. Then PW-6 immediately went to the house of the deceased, saw her daughter suffering with burn injuries, who was crying and was restless. As PW-6 did not find anyone in the house, she cried for help and then Namita Mech (PW-5) followed by her husband and some other people gathered at the place of occurrence. PW-6 further deposed that the victim Junmoni at that point of time was in a condition to speak and told her in broken voice and through her gesture indicating that it is the accused, her husband who set fire on her by pouring kerosene. PW-6 deposed that all of them took the victim to Tinsukia Civil Hospital from where she was referred to the AMCH, Dibrugarh. PW-6 deposed that all of them took the victim to Tinsukia Civil Hospital from where she was referred to the AMCH, Dibrugarh. PW-6 in her evidence deposed that the deceased and her husband use to quarrel frequently and that the said witness use to settle their disputes. She also deposed that after the death of her daughter police came, made the inquest on the person of her deceased daughter and prepared the inquest report (Exhibit-4) in which she had given her signature. In her cross-examination by the defence, PW-6 stated that police examined her and that when her grandson Raktim informed her about the incident, she went to the house of the deceased, found her in the kitchen with burn injuries on her body including face and tongue due to which her voice was broken. PW-6 also stated that hearing her cry, a person from tea tribe community came to that place, whose name she had forgotten. She reiterated that prior to the date of the incident both the accused and the deceased use to quarrel because of which her daughter (the deceased) came to her paternal house and only when she (PW-6) settled the matter, her daughter was sent back to the house of her son-in-law, the accused. She denied the suggestions made by the defence. 20. PW-7, Mina Mech, who knew both the deceased and the accused in her evidence deposed that the incident took place on 21.02.2014 and that her house was about 200 meters away from the house of the deceased and that on the date of the incident around 11:00 PM father of the deceased (PW-2, Basanta Mech) came to their house and informed them that his daughter Junmoni was set on fire by the accused Ananda Sonowal pouring kerosene oil on her. On getting said information, they went to Junmoni’s house and found that people have already gathered at the place of occurrence and were arranging a vehicle to take her to Hospital. PW-7 deposed that she found Junmoni with burn injuries on her entire body and that Junmoni in her broken voice told that it was her husband who set fire on her by pouring kerosene oil. In her cross-examination, PW-7 stated that she did not see the incident and that she had forgotten the names of those people whom she had seen in the house of the deceased. In her cross-examination, PW-7 stated that she did not see the incident and that she had forgotten the names of those people whom she had seen in the house of the deceased. See denied the suggestion made by the defence. 21. PW-8, Mamoni Mech who knew both the deceased and the accused in her evidence deposed that the house of the deceased was about 150 meters away from the her house. She stated that around 12:00 AM on the date of the incident on hearing the outcry of mother of the deceased, she went to Junmoni’s (deceased) house and found her lying on the lap of her mother with burnt injuries. PW-8 also deposed that it was Junmoni who in her broken voice stated that it was her husband who set fire on her by pouring kerosene oil. PW-8 further deposed that the accused and the deceased use to quarrel frequently amongst themselves. During her cross-examination, PW-8 stated that on reaching the house of Junmoni she found her lying on the lap of her mother outside the room with burnt injuries on her body. She stated that by the time she reached the place of occurrence, many people already gathered in the house of Junmoni and that she could not recollect their names. She further stated that she did not witness the incident and denied the suggestions made by the defence. 22. PW-9, Jintu Mech, younger brother of the deceased in his evidence deposed that their house was about 200 meters away from the house of the deceased and that on the date of the incident around 10:00 pm Raktim Sonowal (PW-11), son of the deceased came to their house and informed that his mother was set on fire by his father, the accused. Then they went to the house of the accused, saw his sister trembling with burnt injuries and then they took her in a vehicle to Langkashi Outpost and from there they went to Civil Hospital. After giving first-aid to her in Tinsukia Hospital, she was referred to the AMCH, Dibrugarh and in the morning around 06:00 AM, his sister succumbed to her injuries. PW-9 further deposed that on being asked, his sister in a broken voice told them that her husband had set fire on her by pouring kerosene oil. After giving first-aid to her in Tinsukia Hospital, she was referred to the AMCH, Dibrugarh and in the morning around 06:00 AM, his sister succumbed to her injuries. PW-9 further deposed that on being asked, his sister in a broken voice told them that her husband had set fire on her by pouring kerosene oil. PW-9 deposed that the inquest of his deceased sister was done at Dibrugarh and he identified his signature on the said inquest report (Exhibit-4). In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-9 stated that Raktim (PW-11) and sister-in-law Beauty Mech (PW-10) came to their house and informed about the incident and on hearing it, his father and mother went to the house of his sister ahead of him and after about 10 minutes he went there. He also stated that on reaching the place of occurrence he found about seven to eight persons in the house of the deceased and saw his sister with burnt injuries on her whole body including her face, but he was not aware whether her tongue was burnt or not. PW-9 further stated that on his way to the house of the accused, he met his sister on the road. PW-9 denied the suggestions made by the defence. 23. PW-10, Beauty Mech, in her evidence deposed that the deceased was her sister-in-law and the accused was her brother-in-law and that the incident took place on 21.02.2014. She also deposed that on the date of the incident around 10:30 pm the accused Ananda Sonowal came to their house and called her from outside by crying Bou-Bou (sister-in-law – sister-in-law ). Hearing it, when she came out of her house she found Raktim (PW-11) only, standing near their gate and on the request of Raktim she escorted him to the house of his maternal uncle Jintu Mech (PW-9) and then she returned to her house. PW-10 further deposed that after hearing the cries from the house of the accused, she went there and found Junmoni in burnt condition and was lying on the lap of her mother. But she deposed that she could not see the burn injuries as her body was covered with cloth and that it was from Junmoni’s mother (PW-6), she came to know that it is the accused Ananda Sonowal who set fire on Junmoni by pouring kerosene oil. But she deposed that she could not see the burn injuries as her body was covered with cloth and that it was from Junmoni’s mother (PW-6), she came to know that it is the accused Ananda Sonowal who set fire on Junmoni by pouring kerosene oil. PW-10 deposed that when she reached the house of the accused Ananda Sonowal, he was not found in his house. During her cross-examination by the defence, PW-10 stated that Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) did not state before her about the incident and it was the mother of Junmoni (PW-6) who told her that the accused set fire to his wife. 24. PW- 11 Raktim Sonowal, minor son of the deceased in his evidence deposed that the deceased was his mother and that accused is his father. He deposed that the incident took place about 4 to 5 months back and on the night of the incident he saw his father assaulting his mother by a pira(a flat wooden stool of very less height, used for the purpose of sitting on ground or to keep something on it above the ground) and thereafter his father set fire on his mother by pouring kerosene oil on her. Then his father took him to the house of Beauty Mech (PW-10), left him there, telling him that he shall bring a vehicle, but his father did not return. PW-11 deposed that it was Beauty Mech (PW-10) who escorted him to the house of his Enai (maternal grandmother) -Jintu Mech (PW-9) and then he told him about the incident. He also deposed that he was produced before the Court at Tinsukia, where his statement was recorded by the Magistrate and he had given his thumb impression on it. He also deposed that he can now write his name. During his cross-examination said PW-11 stated that he had dinner around 8 PM and then he went to bed. At the time of occurrence he was slipping and on hearing commotion he woke up and went to answer nature’s call. Then his father closed the door, poured kerosene on the body of his mother and set fire on her and that he saw the incident peeping through the door that was made of bamboo. He reiterated that he with Beauty Mech (PW-10) went to the house of his maternal uncle Jintu (PW-9). Then his father closed the door, poured kerosene on the body of his mother and set fire on her and that he saw the incident peeping through the door that was made of bamboo. He reiterated that he with Beauty Mech (PW-10) went to the house of his maternal uncle Jintu (PW-9). He denied the suggestions made by the defence but he stated that he did not see the burn injuries on the body of his mother. 25. PW-12 Namrata Sonowal, minor daughter of the deceased in her evidence deposed before the Trial court that the deceased was her mother and the accused is her father and that on the date of the incident she was in the house of her maternal uncle (PW-9). She also deposed that as her parents use to fight frequently, she on most occasions stayed in the house of her maternal uncle. She stated that after getting the information she entered their house with her grandmother and found her mother lying with burnt injuries all over her body. She deposed the she could hear her mother who in her broken voice told and by gesture indicated that her father poured kerosene on her mother and then set fire on her. PW-12 further deposed that while she was at her house, she did not find her father. During her cross-examination PW-12 stated that her brother Raktim (PW-11) (younger to her) came with Beauty Mech (PW-10) to the house of her maternal uncle and that she use to stay in the house of her grandmother and that even on the date of the incident she was with her grandmother. She stated that she did not see the incident and when she reached their house she found some persons on it but could not recollect their names. She stated that police did not record her statements. She denied the suggestions made by the defence. 26. PW-13, Sourav Hazarika, friend of Jintu Mech (PW-9), is a hearsay and seizure witness. In his evidence he deposed that in his presence police recovered one five litres empty plastic container, one match box and a bed sheet and that he signed the seizure memo. He identified the Material Exhibits – 1, 2 and 3 and also proved his signature in the seizure memo (Exhibit-3). In his evidence he deposed that in his presence police recovered one five litres empty plastic container, one match box and a bed sheet and that he signed the seizure memo. He identified the Material Exhibits – 1, 2 and 3 and also proved his signature in the seizure memo (Exhibit-3). However in his cross-examination PW-13 stated that when he signed the seizure memo (Exhibit-3) it was blank and that the seized articles might have been seized from kitchen. 27. PW-14, Mintu Gogoi, friend of Jintu Mech (PW-9), is also a hearsay and seizure witness. In his evidence and cross-examination he stated the same as that of PW-13, Sourav Hazarika. However, in his cross-examination he added that the seized plastic container was of white colour. 28. PW-15, Pitambar Keot, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who initially investigated the case, in his evidence before the Trial Court deposed that on the night of 21.02.2014 when he was working at Langkashi Outpost under Bordubi Police Station, one Basanta Mech (PW-2) appeared at the Outpost with his daughter Junmoni Sonowal in a burnt condition and already informed him that his said daughter was rescued with the help of villagers and was brought to the said Post for her treatment and that said Basanta Mech told him that it was Ananda Sonowal, her husband who burnt her. Accordingly he recorded the said fact by making G D Entry in the said Outpost vide No. 322 dated 21.02.2014 and forwarded the said victim to the Civil Hospital at Tinsukia for her treatment directing the relatives of the victim to file an ejahar. Said PW-15, ASI of Police also deposed that as the in-charge of the said Outpost was out on patrol duty, he himself prepared to investigate the matter, recorded the statement of the victim/injured under section 161 CrPC, who in broken language stated that she was burnt by her husband (Exhibit 6) and that he had put his signature on it. He stated the he had also recorded the statement of Basanta Mech (PW-2), proceeded to the place of occurrence with police personnel, reached the house of the accused Ananda Sonowal at Bazaloni Gaon, but could not find him and as it was dark, they returned to the Outpost. He stated the he had also recorded the statement of Basanta Mech (PW-2), proceeded to the place of occurrence with police personnel, reached the house of the accused Ananda Sonowal at Bazaloni Gaon, but could not find him and as it was dark, they returned to the Outpost. He deposed that on the next day he again went to the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the sketch map (Exhibit 5), found that the incident took place in the kitchen of the house of the accused; seized one plastic gallon containing about half litre of kerosene, one match box and one partially burnt bed cover in presence of witnesses by preparing seizure list (Exhibit 3). He came to know that the victim succumbed to her injuries at the AMCH, Dibrugarh. He proved the Exhibits 3, 5 and 6 in original with his signatures on it. He handed over the case to the concerned In-charge who later filed the charge sheet in the case. In his cross-examination PW-15, Pitambar Keot ASI of Police stated that when the injured victim was brought to the police Outpost he recorded her statement and at that point of time she was not able to speak clearly and spoke in broken language and that at that stage he had no time to obtain certificate from doctor regarding her capability of giving such statement. He stated that during investigation he recorded the statements of Biren Mech, Saurav Hazarika, Smti. Mannorama Mech, and Smti. Namita Mech and also the seizure witnesses. He stated that neither the witness Smti. Mannorama Mech (PW-4) stated before him that Anil Mech or the son of the accused (PW-11) informed her about the incident nor the witness Namita Mech (PW-5) stated before him that father of the victim Junmoni (PW-2) informed her about the incident. PW-15 stated that as the victim was covered with cloth, he did not notice in which part of her body, the victim got injuries and he denied the suggestion that the victim did not state before him anything as she was unable to speak at all. 29. PW-15 stated that as the victim was covered with cloth, he did not notice in which part of her body, the victim got injuries and he denied the suggestion that the victim did not state before him anything as she was unable to speak at all. 29. PW-16, Abidur Rahman, Sub-Inspector of Police, Investigation Officer of the case in his evidence on 22.02.2014 before the Trial Court deposed that initial investigation was carried out by ASI Pitambar Keot (PW-15) and after filing of the FIR by Basanta Mech (PW-2) at the Langkashi Outpost under Bordubi Police Station, he took up the investigation of the case, recorded the statements of the witnesses including the informant Basanta Mech, visited the place of occurrence, apprehended the accused on 23.02.2014 from Mathala Line, recorded his statement, arrested him and forwarded to the Court. Articles that were seized by ASI Pitambar Keot were shown in the Court and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet (Exhibit-8) in the case. He proved the note of Bordubi Police Station G D Entry No. 244 dated 23.02.2014 (Exhibit-7) regarding the acceptance of the ejahar lodged by informant Basanta Mech, that was forwarded by the Langkashi Outpost, which was registered as Bordubi Police Station Case No. 15/2014. He deposed that though he forwarded six witnesses to the Court for recording of their statements under Section 164 CrPC, out of those only the statement of the child witness Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) was recorded. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not record the statement of Tetera Mech, recorded the statement of Mina Mech near the house of the accused on 22.02.2014 and that house of a person from the tea tribe community is located near the house of the accused. He denied the suggestion that without conducting the investigation properly he submitted the charge sheet in the case against the accused person. 30. He denied the suggestion that without conducting the investigation properly he submitted the charge sheet in the case against the accused person. 30. From the above as per the evidence of the autopsy doctor PW-1 we have seen that the victim Junmoni Sonowal died of due to shock resulting from ante mortem epidermal to dermoepidermal flame burn injuries on the upper part of the face above the level of tip of nose, neck, front and back of chest and abdomen, both upper limbs up to the level of wrists, front and lateral aspect of right thigh, both buttocks covering approximately 65% of her total body surface area and that smell of kerosene was present on her body. Regarding no injury on the hands of the deceased, the said doctor opined that there may be possibility that either the hands were covered or the person did not try to protect herself. But we have also noticed that the said autopsy doctor at the same time found burn injuries in both the upper limbs, up to the level of wrist, on the person of the deceased. 31. We have also noticed that except Raktim Sonowal (PW-11), minor son of the accused and the deceased and, there is no eye witness to the incident. Other witnesses, more particularly, PW-6 Bimala Mech, mother of the deceased and PW-9, brother of the deceased reached the place of occurrence, when said Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) went to their house, informed them about the incident, requested his grandmother PW-6 to come to his house immediately and when said PW-6 after getting the information, reached the place of occurrence, she found the victim with burnt injuries on her body. It is also seen that paternal home of the deceased was about 200/250 meters away from the house of the accused. Though the incident occurred on the night of 21.02.2014 in the house of the accused, but none could find him in and around the said locality and that the accused was apprehended by police from a different place, Mathala Line on 23.02.2014. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Panchhi and Others Vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177 regarding evidence of child witness have settled the law that — the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Panchhi and Others Vs. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177 regarding evidence of child witness have settled the law that — the testimony of a child witness must find adequate corroboration before it is relied on. However it is more a rule of practical wisdom than of law. It cannot be held that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his evidence shall be rejected, even if is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. 33. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we have noticed that Smti. Beauty Mech (PW-10) on request of Raktim Sonowal (PW-11), minor son of the accused and the deceased, escorted him on the night of the incident to the house of his maternal uncle Jintu Mech (PW-9) and she returned. Said PW-10 Raktim Sonowal then informed his said maternal uncle Jintu Mech and his maternal grandmother Bimala Mech (PW-6) about the incident requesting his grandmother to come to his house immediately and when said PW-6 went immediately to the house of her daughter, she found her daughter suffering with burn injuries, who was crying and was restless. Namrata Sonowal (PW-12), elder sister of Raktim, who is also a minor and was staying with her maternal grandmother Bimala Mech (PW-6) could come to know about the incident when her younger brother informed her said grandmother. PW-2 Basanta Mech, PW-6 Bimala Mech, PW-9, Jintu Mech, PW-10 Smti. Beauty Mech, PW-12 Namrata Sonowal proved that said Raktim Sonowal (PW-11), minor son of the deceased and the accused came to his maternal uncle on the night of 21.02.2014, after the incident, accompanied by PW-10, Beauty Mech. Further, Smti. PW-2 Basanta Mech, PW-6 Bimala Mech, PW-9, Jintu Mech, PW-10 Smti. Beauty Mech, PW-12 Namrata Sonowal proved that said Raktim Sonowal (PW-11), minor son of the deceased and the accused came to his maternal uncle on the night of 21.02.2014, after the incident, accompanied by PW-10, Beauty Mech. Further, Smti. Beauty Mech PW-10, who is the sister-in-law of both the deceased and the accused, in her evidence deposed that on the date of the incident around 10:30 pm the accused Ananda Sonowal came to their house and called her from outside by crying and on hearing it, when she came out of her house, she found only Raktim (PW-11) standing near their gate and it was on the request of said Raktim, she escorted him to the house of his maternal uncle Jintu Mech (PW-9) and then she returned to her house. 34. From the evidence of said Raktim Sonowal (PW-11), minor son of the deceased and the accused, we have seen that he was about eight years at the time of recording of his evidence and therefore, oath was not given to him prior to recording of his evidence. In his evidence said Raktim also deposed that his statement was earlier recorded by the Magistrate and that fact is proved by the evidence of PW-16 Abidur Rahman, Sub-Inspector of Police, Investigation Officer of the case. 35. PW-15, Pitambar Keot, ASI of Police, who initially investigated the case, in his evidence deposed before the Trial Court that on the night of 21.02.2014 when the victim Junmoni Sonowal in a burnt condition was brought to the Langkashi Outpost, he made the necessary G D Entry in the said Outpost vide No. 322 dated 21.02.2014 and also recorded the statement of the said victim under section 161 CrPC, who in broken language could stated that she was burnt by her husband Ananda Sonowal, the extract of said statement was adduced as evidence Exhibit-6, that was proved by said PW-15, with his signature therein. 36. Though said Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) was a minor at the time of the incident, but we found that his statements have been corroborated by other witnesses, as noted above, as the other prosecution witnesses, after getting the information regarding burning of his mother and on reaching the house of the accused, found the victim Junmoni in burnt condition. 36. Though said Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) was a minor at the time of the incident, but we found that his statements have been corroborated by other witnesses, as noted above, as the other prosecution witnesses, after getting the information regarding burning of his mother and on reaching the house of the accused, found the victim Junmoni in burnt condition. Assuming that the statement of the accused made under Section 313 CrPC as correct that Junmoni burnt herself by pouring kerosene on her; but being the husband of the victim, the accused instead of dousing the fire, left her burning and ran away from the place of occurrence. 37. On scrutinizing the evidence we have found that the evidence of the child witness Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) is reliable and there is an impress of truth in it and there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of said child witness Raktim Sonowal. Moreover, deceased was his mother and the accused is his father. 38. It is seen that PW-2, Basanta Mech, father of the deceased; PW-4 Manorama Mech, PW-5 Namita Mech, PW-6 Bimala Mech, mother of the deceased; PW-7 Mina Mech, PW-8 Mamoni Mech; PW-9, Jintu Mech, younger brother of the deceased; PW- 11 Raktim Sonowal minor son of the deceased; PW- 12, Namrata Sonowal, minor daughter of the deceased in their evidence all deposed that the victim in a broken voice and by gesture told them that it is her husband, Ananda Sonowal, the accused had set fire on her by pouring kerosene oil. Moreover, PW-15, Pitambar Keot, ASI of Police in his evidence deposed that when the victim was brought to the Police Outpost, he recorded the statement of the victim/injured under section 161 CrPC and the victim in her broken language stated that she was burnt by her husband and that he had put his signature on it, exhibited the same as Exhibit 6 and forwarded her to the Tinsukia Civil Hospital for her treatment. 39. When all these evidence were brought to the notice of the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused simply answered that all the accusation made against him are false and that the deceased Junmoni burnt herself. 39. When all these evidence were brought to the notice of the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused simply answered that all the accusation made against him are false and that the deceased Junmoni burnt herself. Regarding the evidence of minor Raktim (PW-11), the accused in his 313 CrPC statement though admitted that said Raktim is his son but he stated that the statements of Raktim are false and that Raktim had made such statements being instigated by his uncle. We have seen that the accused in his 313 CrPC statement did not reply and remained silent regarding his absence in his house on the night of the incident and after keeping Raktim, his son outside the house of his sister-in-law, Beauty Mech (PW-10) leaving him there saying him that he will get a vehicle. 40. In the case of Baladin Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 181 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges, have held that — Ordinarily accused persons are entitled to challenge the testimony of witnesses examined in court with reference to the statements said to have been made by them before the investigating police officer. Statements made by prosecution witnesses before the investigating police officer being the earliest statements made by them with reference to the facts of the occurrence are valuable material for testing the veracity of the witnesses examined in court, with particular reference to those statements which happen to be at variance with their earlier statements; but the statements made during police investigation are not substantive evidence. Hence the record made by a police investigating officer has to be considered by the court only with a view to weighing the evidence actually adduced in court. 41. From the above, we found that the defence failed to thwart, invalidate or controvert these evidence led by the prosecution. We are of the opinion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused-appellant Ananda Sonowal beyond all reasonable doubt in committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal by pouring kerosene oil and setting fire upon her, thereby burning her on the night of 21.02.2014. 42. We are of the opinion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused-appellant Ananda Sonowal beyond all reasonable doubt in committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal by pouring kerosene oil and setting fire upon her, thereby burning her on the night of 21.02.2014. 42. As such the impugned Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 138 (T) of 2014, arising out of Bordubi Police Station Case No. 15/2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 318/2014, convicting the accused appellant Ananda Sonowal @ Bhaikon under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Junmoni Sonowal and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for another 1 (one) month does not call for any interference. 43. We appreciate the service rendered by Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Amicus Curie for the appellant and Ms. Barnali Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam in adjudicating the matter. We direct the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae for his assistance rendered to the Court on raising a bill by him. 44. Registry shall return the relevant records of Sessions Case No. 138 (T) of 2014 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia along with a copy of this order. 45. A copy of this order be also furnished to the accused appellant Sri Ananda Sonowal @ Bhaikon, Son of Late Tuleswar Sonowal, through the Superintendent cum Jailor, Tinsukia District Jail, Tinsukia. 46. Before parting with the matter, we direct that under Section 357A CrPC Victim Compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) only, shall be paid to each of the minor children of the deceased Junmoni Sonowal and the accused Ananda Sonowal @ Bhaikon, namely, Ms. Namrata Sonowal (PW-12) and Sri Raktim Sonowal (PW-11) by the District Legal Service Authority, District-Tinsukia, keeping those amounts as fixed deposits in their respective names in any nationalised bank near their place of stay, on their proper identification by the learned Session Judge, Tinsukia, which shall be released to them on their attaining 21 (twenty one) years of age.