Gauhati High Court
Sri Raju Dutta vs The State Of Assam on 18 February, 2015
Author: P. K. Saikia
Bench: P. K. Saikia, M. R. Pathak
1
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Crl. Appeal (J) No. 56 of 2011
Sri Raju Dutta,
Son of Late Pona Dutta,
Resident of Nowbaisa Gaon,
P.S. Jorhat,
District- Jorhat.
Versus
The State of Assam
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. SAIKIA
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. PATHAK
For the Appellant : Ms. U. Das, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent : Ms. S. Jahan, Addl. P.P., Assam.
Date of hearing : 18.02.2015
Date of judgment : 18.02.2015
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011
2
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
(P. K. Saikia, J) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.2.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 5(JJ)/2009 convicting the accused appellant herein of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) i.d. R.I. for another 3 (three) months for the offence aforesaid.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused person) has preferred this appeal citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge.
3. We have heard Ms. U. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., for the State.
4. The facts which are projected by prosecution during trial and which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that one Anjali Dutta (since dead, who would be referred to hereinafter as the victim) was married by Mrinal Dutta. The marriage was consummated and they were blessed with a child as well. After the birth of their child, the victim was driven out from her matrimonial house for which she was forced to take shelter at her parental house at Patia Gaon under Jorhat Police Station and had been residing there till 27.03.2006.
5. On 27.03.2006 at about 10 a.m. when the victim Anjali and her sister Jyoti Rupa Dutta (PW 1) were at their house, accused Sri Raju Dutta came to their house and got involved in a quarrel with the victim. Little later, PW 1 heard hue and cry being raised by the victim from their courtyard. On coming out of her house, she (PW 1) saw her sister, the victim burning. Seeing such horrible scene, she tried to douse the fire by putting a blanket around the victim. In the meantime, the accused fled the scene. Thereafter, the victim was shifted to Jorhat Civil Hospital.
6. In the meantime, Smti. Jyoti Rupa Dutta (PW 1) lodged an FIR with I/C Bhogdoi Police Outpost. On the receipt of such FIR, I.C, Bhogdoi Outpost made a G.D. Entry on such FIR and forwarded the same to the Jorhat Police Station for doing further needful. On the basis of such an FIR, O/C, Jorhat Police Station registered a case vide Jorhat P.S. Case No. 152/2006 u/s 447/326/307 of the IPC Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 3 against the accused person and entrusted one Shri Dhiren Barman, S.I.of Police to investigate the case.
7. Shri Dhiren Barman, S.I. of Police being so entrusted, started investigating the case. During the course of investigation, the I/O visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and did other needful. However, on 16.04.2006 while being treated at the Jorhat Civil Hospital, the victim succumbed to her injuries for which section 302 of the IPC was added to the aforesaid case.
8. On the death, the I/O sent the dead body to the Doctor concerned for post mortem examination, collected the P/M report in course of time and on completion of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet u/s 447/302 IPC against the accused person and sent him to the court to stand his trial. The learned Magistrate before whom charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the court of Sessions since the offence u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
9. The learned Sessions Judge on the receipt of case on commitment and on hearing the parties, framed charge u/s 302 IPC against the accused person and charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution had examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses including the informant, I/O as well as the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body. The statement of the accused person u/s 313 CrPC was also recorded where the accused denied having committed the offence, he was charged with.
10. However, on being required, he declined to adduce evidence of his own. On conclusion of trial and on hearing the arguments, advanced, by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned court below was pleased to convict the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal.
11. Ms. U. Das, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that judgment under challenge is required to be quashed and set aside since the same was not rendered either on the basis of materials on record or in accordance with the prescription of law which holds the field in question. In that connection, it has been stated that the prosecution case is basically founded on the Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 4 dying declarations made by the victim which were heard by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5.
12. However, the dying declarations aforesaid cannot be relied on since those dying declarations are different on fundamental aspects. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn to the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sm t. Poniben Versus State of Gujarat reported in (1992) 2 SCC 474 .
13. Once the dying declarations are kept out of consideration, there is no other material on record to conclude that it is the accused, and none else, who committed the crime in question. Since the dying declarations are found to be unsustainable in law and since there is no other reliable evidence on record to conclude that accused had committed the crime aforesaid, it was improper on the part of the trial court to convict the accused of the offence, he was charged with.
14. Her further case was that some of the witnesses are found saying that they saw the accused going away from the place of occurrence soon after the incident aforesaid. However, such evidence too cannot be relied on since the witnesses who made such claim could not withstand the test of cross-examination. Even then, if one believes for one reason or other that the accused left the scene soon after the incident under consideration, such evidence is wholly insufficient to require this Court to take a view that having set the victim on fire, the accused fled the scene.
15. Referring to the claim of the prosecution that the accused came to the place of occurrence with a gallon of kerosene oil in his hand and having poured such kerosene oil on the victim, he set her on fire and then left the place of occurrence hurriedly cannot be believed for reasons more than one. In that connection, it has been submitted that it was totally impossible for a person to come to the house of the deceased with a gallon of kerosene oil in his hand and then to set the victim on fire.
16. In support of such contention, learned Amicus Curiae further submits that since the incident in question occurred in the house of the deceased which is situated in a thickly populated area and since such incident occurred at a time when very many people were in and around at the place of occurrence, it would not be Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 5 possible for the accused to commit such a dastardly act in the midst of so many people without he being caught and beaten brutally. Such revelations only serve to show that prosecution case is based more on conjectures than on facts.
17. She also submits that though the deceased survived for about 23 days from the date of incident, yet, the I/O made no effort whatsoever to record the statement of the victim by a Magistrate or by a Doctor. Failure on the part of the I/O to record the dying declaration of the victim either by a Doctor or by a Magistrate casts a serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. In view of above alleged infirmities, learned Amicus Curiae submits this court to acquit the accused person of offence u/s 302 IPC and set him at liberty forthwith.
18. Learned Addl. P.P., controverting the submissions, advanced from the side of appellant contends that submissions, advanced by Amicus Curiae were not premised on facts on record. In that connection, it has been stated that though the deceased had made dying declarations before several persons, such as PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 8, yet, such dying declarations are found to be consistent on all material points. In fact, one dying declaration supports the other. Such dying declarations unmistakably demonstrate that the accused set the victim on fire on the morning aforesaid.
19. The evidence of those witnesses finds support from some other witnesses such as PW 2 & PW 5 who saw the accused hurriedly leaving the place of occurrence moments after the alleged incident. Such evidence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, according to the learned Addl. P.P., again shows that the accused having set the victim on fire left the place of occurrence hurriedly.
20. There is evidence on record in the form of testimonies of PW 1 & PW 2 to show that the moments after the alleged incident, the PW 1 tried to douse the fire which engulfed the victim by putting a blanket across her body. Such evidence coupled with other evidence on record again demonstrates that the victim sustained burn injuries in the morning of 27.03.2006 and she was so put on fire by the accused and none else.
21. Referring to the allegation that prosecution case becomes suspicious for I/O's not recording the dying declaration of the deceased either through Medical Officer or Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 6 Judicial Officer, yet, only for such infirmities, the prosecution case cannot be thrown away since there is indisputable evidence on record in the form of testimonies of several PWs, more particularly, PW 1 and PW 5 to show that the accused and none else had set fire to the victim on the eventful morning. She therefore, submits this Court to dismiss the appeal on affirming the judgment under challenge.
22. We have heard the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the judgment under challenge as well as the evidence on record. But before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the evidence of PW 6, Dr. T.C. Dutta, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at Jorhat Civil Hospital on 17.04.2006. His evidence runs as follows:--
"A female dead body of average built. Rigor mortis present. WOUNDS, POSITION, SIZE & CHARACTER Extensive burn and charred skin over both hands, i.e., front & back; legs up-to knee front of back, face, cheek and front of abdomen.
SCALP, SKULL & VERTEBRAE - Congested.
MEMBRANE, BRAIN & SPINAL CORD- Congested.
The burn injuries are ante mortem in nature.
In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and sepsis as a result of burn injury sustained by the deceased."
23. The evidence of doctor reveals that deceased died on or about 16.04.2006 on sustaining burn injuries. Now, we need to know who subjected the victim to the injuries aforesaid.
24. So situated, let us consider the evidence of other witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of PW 1, Smti. Jyotirupa Dutta, who claims to have arrived at the place of occurrence before the arrival of other witnesses at such place. According to her, at the time of occurrence, she was inside her house. Her father had gone to market to sell bamboo. Her mother also went to market to purchase medicine. During the time, under consideration, the victim started to reside with them since she was driven out from her matrimonial house by her husband.
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 725. According to PW 1, on the date of occurrence at 10 am, she was taking rest in her house since she was indisposed of. While taking rest in her house, she heard the accused talking with the victim in their courtyard. Suddenly, she also heard alarm, being raised by Anjali, her sister. She immediately came out of her house and saw the victim burning. When she tried to come near to the victim, the accused prevented her from doing so. However, soon thereafter, the accused fled from the scene. She then wrapped the victim with a blanket to extinguish the fire which engulfed the victim by that time.
26. The victim also shouted "Raju has finished me, please save me". Hearing the hue and cry, people from the vicinity rushed to such place which includes her friend Suraya Sheikh @ Maina. Soon thereafter, PW 1 lodged an FIR with I/C Bhogdoi Outpost which she proved as Ext. 1. In the meantime, her father too arrived at the scene. The victim was then shifted to Civil Hospital where she was treated for about 23 days. However, she could not be saved. PW 1 further stated that till her death, the victim repeatedly kept on saying that Raju put her on fire. During investigation, I/O seized a blanket, one gallon of kerosene oil and a match box from the place of occurrence.
27. She proved such a seizure list as Ext. 2. After death of the victim at hospital, an inquest was done on the body of the deceased and same was done by an Executive Magistrate. The learned Executive Magistrate also prepared a report in that connection which she proved as Ext. 3. According to the PW1, the accused had long acquaintance with them and used to visit their house quite frequently. In her cross-examination, she further states that there is a Shiva temple on the other side of the road, just in front of their house and the accused came there quite frequently to light the earthen lamps in the temple.
28. In her cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that she could not say whether or not on the date of occurrence, before coming to their house, the accused had gone to Shiva temple. However, in her cross-examination, she confirms that she was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence hearing the hue and cry raised by her sister. Her friend Maina came to the PO little later. But she could not remember the names of all the people who came to such place on the eventful morning.
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 829. She, however, admitted that all the persons who arrived at such place tried to douse the fire. In her cross examination, she also states that somebody had arranged an auto rickshaw for shifting the victim to the hospital but she could not say who brought the auto rickshaw. According to her, the doctor who treated the victim enquired her sister as to how she sustained burn injuries but she could not remember the doctor who made such enquiry.
30. In her cross examination, PW 1, however, admitted that she stated before the police that at the relevant time, she was cooking rice and that she did not know if her sister (victim) had an affair with the accused person prior to her marriage. But she denied the suggestion that as the accused had gone to Shiva temple and as she saw him there after the occurrence, she, out of suspicion, had implicated him with the crime in question. She claimed that the seized blanket belonged to her but the seized gallon with leftovers of kerosene oil belonged to somebody else although same was found in their courtyard.
31. PW 1, Sri Duliram Dutta, (PW 2) as well as PW 3, Smt. Aideo Dutta have corroborated the evidence, rendered by PW1 inasmuch as in respect of the aftermath of the incident in question, they were found rendering evidence which is found very similar to the evidence, rendered on such points by the PW1. According to PW 3, on the fateful morning, she went to market to bring some medicines.
31.(a) But learning that some untoward incident had happened in her house, she rushed thereto and saw her daughter being burnt by fire. She also heard her uttering in pain "Raju set the fire". She was soon taken to hospital where she was given treatment. Her daughter survived for 23 days after sustaining injury on 27.03.2006. The suggestion that her daughter committed suicide was denied by PW
3.
32. PW 2, Sri Duliram Dutta, deposes that on the fateful day, he went to market to sell some bamboos. Sometime thereafter, he returned home and found his daughter (Anjali) being burnt by fire. He also found her crying in pain. While returning home, he also saw the accused fleeing from such place riding a bicycle.
"Anjali told him that Raju set her on fire". She was taken to hospital and in hospital too, she kept on uttering the similar statements. However, in his cross examination, Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 9 he admitted that he could not remember if he had stated before the police that he saw the accused fleeing the scene riding a bicycle.
33. He further admitted that he did not state before the police about the deceased making statements in the nature of dying declarations implicating the accused person with the crime under consideration. He did not dispute the suggestion that prior to marriage of Anjali, the accused used to visit his house but denied the suggestion that since before her marriage, Anjali was in some kind of relationship with Raju.
34. He admitted that Raju used to visit Shiva temple to light 'Chaki' (earthen lamp). PW2 did deny the suggestion that after the birth of her child, Anjali left her matrimonial house due to some domestic dispute with her husband and that Anjali's husband came to take her back but he declined to send her due to the cruelty which her husband meted out to his daughter. He also denied the suggestion that Anjali committed suicide and that the accused was implicated with the alleged crime only on suspicion.
35. PW 4, Shri Akanman Saikia, neighbor of the deceased, deposes that on the date of occurrence, at about 10 am, he heard someone shouting "Aio O, morilu, Aio O, morilu" ("Oh, Mother , I am dying, Oh, Mother , I am dying") . He immediately rushed to such place and saw Anjali sustaining burn injuries. Anjali told him "Raju Dutta had set me on fire". On his query "Where is he?" She replied "He has fled away". He did not see Raju there. As he arrived at the PO, he saw the victim trying to douse the fire by rolling on the ground. According to PW4, when he arrived at the PO, nobody was there except PW1.
36. The people from the vicinity came to the place of occurrence and shifted the victim to hospital. Police came to the PO on being informed and seized one blanket, a plastic gallon with leftovers of kerosene oil therein and a matchbox in presence of witnesses on the strength of seizure list Ext.2. In his cross examination, he deposes that about 14/15 persons gathered at the PO soon after the incident. But he could not remember who those persons were. In his cross-examination, he affirmed that Anjali told him that Raju left the place of occurrence after setting her on fire. The suggestion that the victim did not tell him that accused Raju never set her on fire was denied by PW4.
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 1037. PW 5, Smt. Makhoni Kalita, a school employee, deposes that on the fateful morning, at 10 am, while she was proceeding towards school, she saw a man in front of the house of victim who fled the PO soon thereafter riding a bicycle. She also found PW 1 at such place who was then crying. According to PW5, Anjali sustained profound burn injuries all over her body. Anjali told her that 'Raju set me on fire". Saying so, she fell down on the ground. In her cross examination, PW 5 admitted that she did not know anything about aforesaid Raju.
38. PW7, Smti Beauty Dutta is the wife of the accused person. Though she was examined by the prosecution as its witness, she refused to support the prosecution case since she tendered evidence which was not in line of the statements rendered by her, before the I/O during investigation for which she was declared hostile.
39. PW 8, Sri Dhirendra Burman, is the I/O of the case. According to PW8, on 27.03.2006, he was In-charge of Bhogdoi Police Out post. On that day, he received the FIR from PW1. On receipt of the FIR, he made a G.D. entry thereon and forwarded it to Jorhat P.S. to register a case. On receiving the same, Officer-in charge, Jorhat P.S., registered a case and ordered PW8 to investigate the case. He then visited the hospital where victim was undergoing treatment. He recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C which he proved as Ext.5.
40. He then requested the Superintendent of Civil Hospital to detail a Doctor to record the dying declaration of the victim. Ext. 6 is the copy of said requisition. During the course of investigation, PW 8 visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and seized a blanket, a plastic container and a matchbox as shown by the informant on the strength of seizure list Ext.2. The seized articles were collectively proved as Mat. Ext. 1. On 17.04.2006, he received information that on 16.04.2006, the victim succumbed to her injuries while undergoing treatment.
41. On her death, he caused an inquest to be done on the body of the deceased through an Executive Magistrate. A report was prepared in that connection which he proved as Ext. 3. The dead body was then sent for post mortem examination. On conclusion of investigation, he submitted the Charge-sheet U/s 447/302 of the IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court. In response to the query, made by the court, he admitted that he did not record the statement of doctor who attended the victim at hospital.
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 1142. In his cross-examination, he confirms that when he visited the hospital, he found that the victim could speak well. He cannot say who received his requisition made by him requesting to depute a doctor to record dying declaration of the victim. He further admitted that he could not say whether or not the dying declaration of the victim was record by the doctor. He did not receive any reply from the doctor. Ext. 5 is the statement of the victim recorded U/s 161 CrPC on 27.03.2006. He admitted that he did not obtain the signature of the victim on Ext. 5. According to him, it is not mentioned in the Ext. 5 that the statement of the victim was recorded in hospital.
43. We have very carefully considered the materials on record and have found that there is evidence on record to conclude that the PW1 came to the PO, which happens to be the court yard of their house, moments after the victim was put on fire and found her sister burning. As she approached her burning sister, the accused tried to prevent her from reaching her sister. But then, the accused soon fled the scene. She immediately wrapped her sister with a blanket so as to douse the fire.
44. Such evidence, rendered by PW1, finds full support from the testimonies rendered by some other PWs, more particularly, PW2 PW3, PW4 and PW5 since while PW 2 and PW5 depose that they saw the accused fleeing the scene soon after the incident in question riding a bicycle, the PW3 and PW4 depose that they saw the PW1 wrapping the victim with a blanket trying to douse the fire which engulfed the victim by that time. PW4 further deposes that he saw the deceased rolling on the ground in order to save her from burning.
45. Though those PWs were subjected to cross-examination and although such cross-examination shows some infirmities in the evidence of such witnesses, yet, such infirmities by all account are required to be considered as small infirmities, far too inconsequential in demolishing the prosecution case. Being so, the evidence of those PWs when considered together, it would appear clear that it was the accused who set the victim on fire on the morning of 27.03.2006 and then left the PO hurriedly riding a bicycle.
46. It is worth noting that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused used to visit the house of the victim regularly and he also visited the temple in front of the house of the victim quite off and on and did so in order to light the earthen lamps in Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 12 the temple. Such episodes firmly demonstrate that the accused must have resided at a place not far from the place of occurrence. Such revelations, coupled with other facts and circumstances which we have narrated herein before, again show that the accused came to the place of occurrence on the morning in question and set the victim on fire.
47. The fact that the accused had unsuccessfully suggested to the PW 1 that having seen the accused in front of the Shiva temple (which is situated just in front of the house of the victim), PW1 implicated the accused with crime under consideration only on suspicion, again affirms that the claim of the prosecution that the accused was there at the place of occurrence on the fateful morning and he was there equipped with a gallon of kerosene and a match box and he was there just to set the victim on fire which, as stated above, caused her death on 16.01.2006.
48. It is also in the evidence of the witnesses, particularly in the evidence of the PW 1, PW2, PW4 and PW8 that the I/O seized a plastic gallon, a blanket and a match box from the PO soon after the alleged incident. The averments in the Ext. 2 confirm the same. The seizure of those articles, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, affirms more and more the prosecution claim that the accused, and none else, was the author of the crime in question.
49. We have also found that in her evidence, PW 1 made a categorical statement that when she came out of her house on hearing hue and cry raised by the victim, she found her sister burning. She also kept on uttering that the accused Raju set her on fire which she kept on repeating till her death. Such evidence of PW1 draws support from the testimonies, rendered by other PWs, particularly PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW8 as well as the averments, made in Ext. 5.
50. Though the cross-examinations of those PWs show some minor infirmities here and there in the evidence of such witnesses, yet, such infirmities could hardly affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses or for that matter the overall credibility of that prosecution case. This is because of the fact that the evidence of those PWs on the victim's making the statements in the nature of dying declaration are found to be quite symmetrical on all fundamental points.
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 1351. Since the various dying declarations are found to be symmetrical on all major points, since we have found that the victim right from the moment one till her death, kept on saying that on the fateful morning, the accused had set her on fire and since we have found materials on record to conclude that the victim was in full control of mind during most of the time, it needs to be concluded that the dying declarations in question were voluntary and truthful as well.
52. We have also found from the dying declaration rendered to the PW8 (I/O) (Ext. 5) that the accused made a request to the victim to marry him. However, when such request was turned down by the victim, the accused set her on fire on the fateful morning. The aforesaid averments in Ext 5 again shows that the prosecution was successful in showing the motive of the accused in committing the crime in question. Such motive, in turn, puts the prosecution case on more and more firm footing.
53. In view of aforesaid discussions, the contention of learned Amicus Curiae that it is not possible for the accused to set the victim on fire in her own house in the midst of so many household and her contention that accused was implicated with the crime in question without there being any rhyme and reason are found to be without any substance.
54. Therefore, on considering the evidence on record in proper perspective, we have found that prosecution has successfully proved the charge u/s 302 IPC and as such, the court below has rightly convicted the accused of offence u/s 302 IPC and therefore, the judgment under challenge in our considered opinion does not invite any interference.
55. Accordingly, this appeal lacks merit and same is accordingly dismissed.
56. Return the LCR.
57. We deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. U. Das, learned Amicus Curiae. We, therefore, direct the State to pay her an amount of Rs. 7,000/- as being her professional fee. Same needs to be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 1458. Since the deceased died a tragic death on 27.03.2006 leaving behind a minor, we are of the opinion that in terms of Section 357A, some amounts needs to be paid to the legal heir of the deceased as compensation. Accordingly, we direct the State of Assam to pay an amount to the tune of Rs. 1, 00,000/- to the legal heir of the deceased as being compensation.
59. The State of Assam is directed to pay such amount to the State Legal Services Authority (in short, the SLSA) within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On the receipt of such amount , the SLSA shall place such amount at the disposal of the District Legal Services Authority, Jorhat.
60. On the receipt of amount by DLSA, Jorhat, same would be disbursed to the legal representative of the deceased on proper identification, if there is only legal representative of the deceased or in equal share, if number of legal representatives of the deceased are more than one.
61. Further, if sole legal representative or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased is/ are found to be minor(s), then amount, payable to such minor(s) shall be deposited in the account in the name of such minor (s) and such amount shall remain deposited in the account of the minor(s), till, he/she / they attain the age of majority.
JUDGE JUDGE Rupam Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011 15 Crl. A.(J). No. 56 of 2011