Gauhati High Court
Md Sah Alom @ Md Sah Alom Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 8 October, 2021
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam, Robin Phukan
Page No.# 1/30
GAHC010118252018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./199/2018
MD SAH ALOM @ MD SAH ALOM ALI
S/O LATE DHANE ALI
VILLAGE BARGHOLAJHAR PT. I
PS JOGIGHOPA
DIST BONGAIGAON
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:MD. GOLBAHAR ALI
W/O LATE JABBAR ALI
VILLAGE BARGHOLJHAR
PS JOGIGHOPA
DISTRICT BONGAIGAON
78338
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. B BHUYAN(ADDL.PP, ASSAM)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Page No.# 2/30 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Date : 08-10-2021 (Suman Shyam, J) Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No.2.
2. Assailing the judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), North Salmara, Abhayapuri, in Sessions Case No.130(J)/2012 convicting the sole appellant Md. Sah Alom for committing the murder of his wife Monuwara Begum and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months, the instant appeal has been filed. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal are as follows.
3. On 25.08.2012, Md. Golbahar Ali (PW-1) i.e. the father of the victim had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-charge, Jogighopa Police Station reporting that his daughter Monuwara Begum got married with the accused No.1 (present appellant) about two years back as per the social norms and customs but after a few days of their marriage the accused No.1, on instigation of other accused persons, had started torturing his daughter physically and mentally by demanding dowry. In spite of that his daughter had continued to lead her conjugal life with the accused No.1. On 24.08.2012, at around 6.30 p.m., the accused No.1, on being ordered by the other accused persons and with the intention to kill his daughter, had set Monuwara Page No.# 3/30 Begum on fire by pouring kerosene upon her when she was cooking food. As a result of the same, his daughter had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the brother of the accused No.1 took his daughter to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital for treatment and at the time of filing of the F.I.R. his daughter was undergoing treatment therein. In the F.I.R. dated 25.08.2012, five accused persons had been named including the present appellant as accused No.1.
4. Upon receipt of the F.I.R., Jogighopa P.S. Case No.168/2012 was registered under sections 143/498(A)/307/326 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. However, during the course of investigation the victim Monuwara died in the hospital on 06.09.2012. Upon completion of investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had submitted charge-sheet against the accused No.1, Md. Sah Alom Ali, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, no evidence was found against the remaining accused persons as a result of which, they were not sent up for trial. The learned trial court had framed charge under section 302 of the IPC against the accused No.1/appellant. The charge was read over and explained to him. However, the accused had pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter went up for trial.
5. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. There are three dying declarations which have been relied upon by the prosecution in this case. In order to bring home the charge brought against the accused, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. Three other witnesses i.e. CWs-1, 2 and 3 were examined as Court witnesses.
Page No.# 4/30
6. After completion of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. whereby, he had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. The accused had taken a stand that he was innocent and did not know how his wife had caught fire. The defence side, however, did not adduce any evidence.
7. Based on the evidence brought on record and by placing heavy reliance on the dying declaration of the victim, the learned trial court had convicted the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. The learned trial court was also of the view that since the incident had taken place in the matrimonial house of the victim, it was incumbent upon the accused to offer plausible explanation as to how the victim had caught fire, which the accused had failed to offer. On such count, it was also held that the accused person had failed to discharge his burden cast under section 106 of the Evidence Act.
8. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2018, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that none of the three dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution were brought on record in accordance with law and hence, the learned court below had committed a manifest error in convicting the appellant solely based on the dying declarations. Mr. Ahmed has argued that the Executive Magistrate (PW-10) could not say as to who had called her to the hospital to record the dying declaration of the victim nor could she produce any document authorising her to do so. There is no fitness certificate of the doctor certifying that the victim was in a position to make the oral dying declaration (Ext-5) and even the Page No.# 5/30 witnesses to Ext-5 did not support the contents of Ext-5. Moreover, there is evidence to show that the date mentioned below the signature of the PW-8 in Ext-4 (report submitted by PW-8) also tampered with, thereby giving an impression that the report was prepared subsequently. Mr. Ahmed has also argued that the oral dying declarations brought on record by the PWs-1, 5 and 6 are also not reliable in view of the material contradictions in their testimony. According to Mr. Ahmed, CW-3, cousin of the victim who was serving as a Homeguard under the Assam Police, had stage- managed the oral dying declarations by exerting influence over the police and the administration due to some previous enmity with the accused person. Mr. Ahmed has further argued that from the evidence of PW-2 and CW-2 it is established that the accused was not present at home when the fire incident took place. In view of the above, there was no scope for the learned trial court to convict the accused for committing the murder of his wife by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her body. In support of his aforesaid arguments Mr. Ahmed has placed reliance on the following decisions :-
1) State of Gujarat vs. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu reported in (2016) 14 SCC 151 [para 15, 16, 17 & 20].
2) Kashi Vishwanath vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 7 SCC 162 [para 10, 29 & 30].
3) Sharda vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2010) 2 SCC 85 [para 24, 25 & 26].
4) Shorifa Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. reported in 2020 (10) GLT 725.
9. Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other Page No.# 6/30 hand, has argued that there is total consistency in the different versions of dying declarations made by the victim. Since law is well-settled that dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, hence, having regard to the nature of evidence available on record, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant. In view of the above, submits Mr. Kaushik, no interference with the impugned judgment of the trial court leading to the conviction of the appellant is called for in this case.
10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides and have also taken note of the fact that the conviction in this case is based on the dying declarations brought on record by the prosecution side. From a scrutiny of the evidence available on record, we find that in all the three dying declarations the victim Monuwara Begum had alleged that her husband i.e. the accused had poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze while she was cooking. The learned trial court has also held that the accused has failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act by offering plausible explanation in respect of the occurrence.
11. Law is firmly settled that dying declaration of a victim can be the sole basis of conviction of the accused if on a careful scrutiny of the same, the court finds the same to be voluntary, trustworthy and truthful. In order to ascertain as to whether the learned trial court was justified in convicting the appellant based on the dying declarations, it would be necessary for us to evaluate the evidence available on record.
12. As mentioned above, PW-1, Md. Gulbahar Ali, who is the father of the victim, is Page No.# 7/30 the informant in this case. During his deposition before the Court PW-1 has stated that about two years prior to the incident, he had given his daughter Monuwara away in marriage to the accused and after their marriage his daughter had started leading her conjugal life in the house of the accused. PW-1 has also stated that his daughter was the second wife of the accused and the first wife also used to live in the house of the accused. His daughter lived peacefully for the first few days of her marriage but after about six months, one day his daughter came home and said that her husband had asked her to bring 5/10 thousand rupees from her father. He failed to give his daughter the money as a result of which, the accused had assaulted her. The accused and his first wife had asked his daughter to get out of their house or else they would set her on fire. At around 6/6.30 p.m. on 24.08.2012, having seen fire in the house of the accused, he, accompanied by co-villagers Musa Sheikh (PW-9) and Ejaj Uddin (PW-6) had rushed to the house of the accused and saw that his daughter was lying on the ground. Her whole body got burnt. A girl named Halima (PW-2) had poured water on his daughter's body. According to PW-1, at that time, his daughter was able to speak and told him that the accused had set her ablaze. Thereafter, his nephew gave the information to the Jogighopa Police Station whereafter, police came and took Monuwara to the Chalantapur PHC. His daughter was then immediately shifted to Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and she remained there for 13 days before her death. PW-1 has also stated that he had lodged an ejahar with the Police Station on the following day and Ext-1 was the said ejahar. PW-1 had proved his signature in the ejahar as Ext-1(1).
13. During his cross-examination, the PW-1 has stated that his house is two houses Page No.# 8/30 away from the house of the accused and in between their houses the house of Musa (PW-9) and Sajrul was situated. The Konaru Beel was nearby and they, including the accused person, used to catch fish in the Beel. At the time of the occurrence he was present at home. PW-1 has also stated that he did not have his consent to the marriage of his daughter with the accused and after their marriage, he did not visit their house. After the occurrence his nephew Habibur had informed the Jogighopa Police Station before 7.00 p.m. and around 7/7.15 p.m. the police had reached the place of occurrence, made investigation, seized some articles and put Monuwara in a push cart and took her along. PW-1 has also clarified that he had not seen the occurrence but had seen Halima (PW-2) pouring water on his daughter. According to PW-1, police took his daughter to Jogighopa PHC and his nephew, one of his sons and his other son-in-law had accompanied them. PW-1 has also confirmed that in the ejahar it has been mentioned that his daughter was immediately taken to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital by the brother of the accused No.1 for treatment and his name is Moin Uddin.
14. During his re-examination, the PW-1 has stated that his daughter Monuwara died at Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and a Magistrate had held inquest on her dead body in presence of witnesses. Ext-9 is the inquest report and Ext-9(1) was his signature. During cross-examination, PW-1 has, however, stated that he had not put the date below his signature and he was not able to read the contents of Ext-9 because it was written in English. The inquest report was not read over to him nor did he know as to who had prepared the inquest report. PW-1 has also stated that he did not mention the place/location where he had put his signature in the inquest report.
Page No.# 9/30 The Magistrate had asked him to give his signature in the inquest report at the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Abhayapuri.
15. PW-2, Halima Begum is a neighbour of the informant and she knew the accused person as well. PW-2 has deposed that in the evening hours of the day of occurrence, when she had just started to have her dinner, she heard a commotion outside and came out. Then she heard that a fire had broken out in the house of Monuwara. She went to the house of the accused and saw that Monuwara was lying in the courtyard and she had caught fire. Lots of people had gathered there. Everybody had poured water on Monuwara's body. PW-2 has stated that she too had poured water on the body of Monuwara. Monuwara was then taken to the hospital and she died after about 14 days. Her statement was recorded before the Magistrate at Abhayapuri. In her cross-examination, PW-2 has confirmed that when she reached the house of the accused some 30/40 persons had gathered there and she did not know how Monuwara had caught fire. This witness has stated that Monuwara was cooking food using firewood. PW-2 has also stated that the accused was a fisherman and at the time of the incident, he was fishing in some lake. The accused had come running upon hearing the screams. When she reached the place of occurrence she saw that the whole body of Monuwara had been burnt and she was not able to speak. This witness has also stated that on the day of occurrence, she had not seen Gulbahar (PW-1) in the house of the accused.
16. PW-3, Nazrul Haque has deposed that he and the accused used to go for fishing together. He has stated that on the day of occurrence, at around 7.00 p.m., Page No.# 10/30 while he was fishing at Konaru Beel he had heard a commotion in the house of the accused, whereupon he came there and saw Monuwara was lying in the courtyard with burns all over. The people present there had poured water and doused the flame. Later, he came to know that the accused had set Monuwara on fire. In his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that at the time of the occurrence he had seen the accused fishing in the Konaru Beel.
17. PW-4, Hawajuddin Ali has also deposed in similar lines by saying that on the day of the occurrence, he had gone to Konaru Beel to catch fish. At around 6.30 p.m. he had heard commotion coming from the house of the accused and accordingly went there. Upon reaching there, he saw that Monuwara was lying in the courtyard with burn injury. Later on, he came to know from the informant (PW-1) that the accused had set Monuwara on fire. During his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that fishing was done in the Konaru Beel even during the night time and the accused also catches fish there. He saw Monuwara lying unconscious in the courtyard but did not see the accused in his house. This witness has also stated that he was not aware about any quarrel between Monuwara and the accused. In his cross-examination, this witness has also admitted that the PW-1 did not tell him that the accused had set Monuwara on fire. According to PW-4, there was no electricity supply in the village.
18. The fifth witness in this case is Sahidul Islam. The PW-5 has deposed that the daughter of the informant viz., Monuwara got married to the accused 2/3 years prior to her death. After the marriage they started their conjugal life but a few days later he came to know from Monuwara that her husband i.e. the accused used to beat Page No.# 11/30 her demanding dowry. But since the financial condition of PW-1 was not good, he was unable to give anything to his daughter. At around 7.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence, hearing commotion coming from the house of the informant and the accused he first went to the house of the PW-1. There he came to know that Monuwara was set ablaze after pouring kerosene on her as a result of which, she got burnt. In the meantime, Monuwara was taken to the hospital in a push cart. He had met her on the way and asked as to how she had caught fire. Then Monuwara replied that Sah Alom (accused) had set her on fire after pouring kerosene. This witness has also stated that Monuwara was taken to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and she died there after 13 days. Later, police seized an empty plastic drum (without lid), match sticks and earthen lamp vide seizure-list Ext-2. He had put his signature in the seizure-list and Ext-2(1) was his signature. This witness has also identified the plastic drum (Mat. Ext-1), match box (Mat. Ext-2) and earthen lamp with wick (Mat. Ext-3) as well as the pieces of burnt cloth (Mat. Ext-4). During his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that when he had gone to Gulbahar's (PW-1) house 2/3 persons were with him. They were Mokbul Hussain, Motiur Rahman and Matleb Ali. They found PW-1 in his house and were present there for about an hour. PW-5 has also stated that when they went to the house of the accused along with the police PW-1 did not go there with them.
19. PW-6, Ejaj Ali is a neighbour of the accused. He has also deposed that Monuwara was married with the accused about 2 years prior to the incident. After their marriage Monuwara and the accused had started leading their conjugal life. He had heard about the quarrels that had taken place between the accused, his first Page No.# 12/30 wife and Monuwara. This witness has further stated that on the day of the occurrence, at around 7.00 p.m., hearing commotion, when he came out, he had seen light emanating from a fire in the house of the accused. He went to the house of the accused and saw Monuwara in a burnt state, lying on the floor. Lots of people had gathered there. According to PW-6, Monuwara was able to speak at that time and on being asked she replied that the accused had set her on fire by pouring kerosene. Going to the kitchen he saw four dishes with rice on it and also saw a plastic can and a match box lying nearby. During his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused and Monuwara used to quarrel over domestic issues and sometimes the accused used to prevent both his wives from fighting amongst them. In his cross-examination, this witness has also denied the suggestion that since they had not given their consent to the marriage of Monuwara with the accused, hence, they have mis-represented the accident to be a murder committed by the accused.
20. PW-7, Dr. D. N. Rahman was posted as the Medical & Health Officer at the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital on 06.09.2012. The doctor has deposed that on that day at about 4.00 p.m. he had performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Monuwara Khatun, a female aged around 27 years, who was identified by UBC/86 Susanta Sarkar, Md. Gulbahar Ali and Md. Habibur Rahman. According to PW-7, the victim had suffered 80% burn injuries. The findings of the post-mortem report (Ext-3), as proved by the PW-7, are as follows :-
"EXTERNAL APPEARANCE :
An average build female dead body of age around 27 years with burn injury with sough over body and charred hair not decomposed, rigor mortis Page No.# 13/30 present.
Burn injury over body (around 80%) with slough present. CRAMIUM AND SPINAL CANAL :
1. Scalp, skull, vertebrae - Intact and congested.
2. Membrane - Intact and contested.
3. Brain and spinal cord - Intact and congested.
THORAX :
1. Walls, ribs and cartilages - Burn injury with slough seen over anterior and posterior aspect of chest.
2. Pleurae - Intact and contested.
3. Lariynx and trachea - Intact and contested.
Right lung - Intact and contested.
Left lung - Intact and contested.
Pericardium - Intact and contested.
Heart - Intact.
Vessels - Intact.
ABSOMEN :
1. Walls - Burn injury with slough present.
2. Peritoneum - Intact and contested.
3. Mouth, Pharix, Oesophagus - Intact and contested.
4. Stomach and its contents - Intact, no food material, erogions present in Gastric Mucosa.
5. Small intestine and its contents - Intact. Intestinal semi digested food materials.
Page No.# 14/30
6. Large intestine and its contents - Intact with faecal matter.
7. Lever - Intact and contested.
8. Spleen - Intact.
9. Kidneys - Intact.
10. Bladder - Intact.
11. Organs of generation - Burn injury with slough present over external genetelia. Internal organs - Intact.
MUSCLES, BONES AND JOINTS :
Injury, disease or deformity, fracture and dislocation - Nil.
MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF INJURY OR DISEASE :
The percentage of 3rd & 4tj degree Dupuytren described - Upper limbs - Right - 9%, Left - 9%.
Lower limb (both side) - Right - 18%, Left - 18%. Face about 5%.
Chest and abdomen (Anterior) - 9%, Posterior - 12%. Genetelia - 1%.
Total - 81%."
PW-7 has opined that the cause of death of the victim was due to septicemia and hypovolumic shock due to mixed burn of about 81% which is ante-mortem in nature.
21. Dr. Dayananda Mahato was examined by the prosecution as PW-8. This witness has deposed that on 24.08.2012, when he was posted at the Chalantapara Mini PHC as Medical Officer, on that day Monuwara Khatun was brought before him on police requisition. Upon examination he found that the condition of the patient Page No.# 15/30 was not good. He had noticed 80% burn injuries on the body of the victim and she had stated before him, in presence of her father, that her husband had poured kerosene on her body and burnt her. Ext-4 was the report prepared by him and Ext-
4(1) was his signature.
22. During his cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that the patient (Monuwara) was not admitted in the hospital and it was also not mentioned in his report (Ext-4) that he had examined the patient on being requisitioned by the police. It has also not been mentioned in Ext-4 as to who had identified the patient. PW-8 has further stated that the patient was not removed from the vehicle and he had examined the patient in the vehicle but it is not mentioned in his report as to when he had examined the patient. PW-8 has also admitted that below his signature in the report, the date is shown as "28.09.2012"which was over-written on "28.09" and it was not his hand- writing. PW-8 has, however, denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel to the effect that whatever was stated in his advice slip was not the statement of the victim but was mentioned on being influenced by the police and other interested persons.
23. PW-9, Musa Sheikh is another co-villager of the accused and he has also deposed that Monuwara got married to the accused about 2/3 years before the occurrence. On the day of the occurrence, having heard a hue and cry in the house of the accused at about 6.30 p.m. he went there and saw that Monuwara was lying in the courtyard in a burnt condition. PW-1 was also present there. PW-2 had poured water on Monuwara. Police came little later and took Monuwara to the hospital Page No.# 16/30 where she died 13 days later. This witness has also stated that when he went to the house of the accused he found him standing there in the courtyard of his house.
24. In his cross-examination, PW-9 has, however, stated that he was in his house when the incident took place and he had gone to the house of the accused alone but not with the PW-1. He has stated that it was dark in the night of the incident and there was no electricity in their village. He remained in the house of the accused till the arrival of the police. Habibur had called the police. He had neither asked anything to Monuwara nor did he hear Monuwara saying anything. Immediately after the incident, Monuwara's brother took her to the hospital. According to PW-9, Konaru Beel is a vast beel which is about 2 kilometres in breadth and the accused ekes out a living by catching fish. PW-9 has also stated that he saw the accused present there and he was crying. Since Monuwara's father did not give consent to the marriage of his daughter with the accused, the marriage was not solemnised socially. This witness has, however, denied of having heard anything about dowry demand or assault made to Monuwara by the accused. Curiously enough, in his cross-examination PW-9 has stated that he and the PW-1 had come together.
25. PW-10, Smt. Roseleen Das was the Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration of the victim (Ext-5). PW-10 had proved her signature in the dying declaration as Ext-5(1). In her evidence PW-10 has deposed that on 28.08.2012 she was serving as Circle Officer at Bongaigaon. On that day, the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon had asked her in writing to go to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and record the dying declaration of a girl. Accordingly, she went to the Page No.# 17/30 hospital and a police officer showed her the girl. Two witnesses viz., Dildar Ali (CW-1) and Jilhaque Ali (CW-2) were present there when the dying declaration was recorded. According to PW-10, the entire body of the girl was burnt. The girl had said that her name was Monuwara Khatun and thereafter she started noting down her dying declaration (Ext-5). In her cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that in the top portion of Ext-5 it has been mentioned that the statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This witness has also admitted that Ext-5 does not bear the signature of the victim nor does it mention as to where the dying declaration was recorded and at what point of time nor does it indicate as to under whose instruction the dying declaration was recorded. Ext-5 does not also mention as to under which doctor the victim Monuwara was undergoing treatment. PW-10 has also admitted that the dying declaration was not recorded in presence of any doctor, nurse or employee of the hospital and she did not obtain the signature of any person on Ext-5 nor did she ask the doctor as to whether the burn injury of Monuwara was "septicaemia" or "toxaemia". She has also confirmed that Ext-5 does not mention as to whether the patient was able to speak at the time of recording Ext-5 and there is also no fitness certificate from the doctor. The case number and the GD Entry number is also not mentioned in Ext-5 and there is no endorsement of the thumb impression of the two witnesses. She has stated that the police had written the names and address of the witnesses but the name of the police officer has not been mentioned in Ext-5.
26. PW-11, Sri Ramen Talukdar was posted at the Jogighopa Police Station on 24.08.2012. PW-11 has deposed that at about 7.15 p.m. on that day, a person called Gulbahar Ali (PW-1) had informed the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station over Page No.# 18/30 phone that his son-in-law Sah Alom had poured kerosene on his daughter Monuwara Khatun (wife of Sah Alom) while she was cooking food and set her on fire. On receiving the information, the O/C had made G.D. Entry No.769 dated 24.08.2012 (Ext-6) and thereafter, sent him to the place of occurrence. Taking along with him the other staff of the Police Station, he immediately went to the place of occurrence i.e. the house of the accused. On reaching there he heard that Monuwara had already been taken to Chalantapara Hospital. Having found Gulbahar (PW-1) present there he questioned him. After inspecting the place of occurrence and after questioning other witnesses he had seized one liter while plastic drum with cork, match box, earthen lamp and pieces of burnt saree from the place of occurrence vide seizure-list Ext-2, drew sketch map Ext-7. PW-11 has further stated that he did not find the accused in the house. Thereafter, he had visited Chalantapara Hospital and upon finding the injured there, he had questioned her. He had found her entire body was burnt. On being asked, the victim had told him that when she was in the kitchen, her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Since the condition of the injured was not good he had made a request to the doctor to record her dying declaration. Later on, the injured was referred to Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and the Executive Magistrate had recorded her dying declaration. Monuwara Khatun had died 7/8 days thereafter. The Executive Magistrate had held inquest on the dead body. On 25.08.2012 PW-1 Gulbahar Ali had lodged a formal ejahar. The accused was arrested and committed to the court. After collecting the post-mortem report and on completion of investigation he had submitted charge-sheet (Ext-8) against the accused.
Page No.# 19/30
27. During his cross-examination, PW-11 has admitted that he had not submitted the extract of GDE No.769 along with the charge-sheet and Ext-6 is also a certified copy wherein no date appears. The I.O. has admitted that correction fluid had been applied in Ext-6 to rectify the word "Dodhhora". On 24.08.2012 he had made the request for recording the dying declaration of the deceased but on the date of recording his evidence he had not seen the copy of the requisition in the court. During investigation he had collected copy of the dying declaration from the Magistrate. The I.O. has also admitted during his cross-examination that the "G.D. Entry" and the "Date" had been re-written by applying correction fluid in Ext-7 and the figure "24"appearing below his signature appears to be over-written. He has admitted that correction fluid had been applied on Ext-2 and Ext-4. The I.O. has also stated that the victim Monuwara did not tell him as to under what source of light she could recognise her husband. According to PW-11, Monuwara was facing difficulty while speaking but she could tell him about the incident. The I.O. has also admitted that he did not take Monuwara to Chalantapara Hospital or to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital and that he was not present at the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital at the time of recording the dying declaration. The I.O. (PW-11) has also confirmed that he did not identify Monuwara before the Executive Magistrate (PW-10) nor did he make any requisition to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration. Further, the PW-11 has also stated that he did not seize any cooking material such as fire-wood, oven, utensils etc.
28. CW-1, Sri Dildar Ali was examined as a court witness and he has deposed before the Court that he had come to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital since his son Page No.# 20/30 had met with an accident and was admitted there. On that day, about 1 ½ years back, he had seen accused Sah Alom in the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital. Police had shown him the wife of the accused in the hospital. CW-1 has stated that the Magistrate took her statement and he had put his thumb impression therein. However, during his cross-examination, CW-1 has stated that police had called him and obtained his thumb impression on a paper. He did not know whether the wife of the accused was able to speak or not nor did he see any Magistrate in the hospital or for that matter any Magistrate writing anything.
29. CW-2, Dilhaque Ali is another court witness and a co-villager of the accused as well as the complainant. CW-2 has deposed that Monuwara got married to the accused and after their marriage, they led their conjugal life. The incident had occurred about 1 ½ years back and on the date of occurrence, at about 6.00 p.m., along with Musa (PW-9), Hawajuddin (PW-4) and Sah Alom (accused) he had gone to Konara Beel for fishing. There they received the information that Monuwara had caught fire and was lying in the house. Monuwara was taken to the hospital and later on she made her statement before the Magistrate. He had put his signature therein as a witness. During his cross-examination CW-2 has stated that on the day of the occurrence, upon hearing a hue and cry while they were in the beel catching fish, they came to the village and found Monuwara lying in the courtyard in a burnt condition. He had heard that fire had caught Monuwar while she was boiling rice. CW-2 has also stated that accused Sah Alam also came running with them. Then they put Monuwara on a "thela"(hand cart) and took her to the hospital. Monuwara's body was burnt and she was not able to speak. Her tongue had also got burnt. He Page No.# 21/30 had stayed in the hospital for two days. The police had obtained his signature. He had put his thumb impression but no woman took his signature.
30. CW-3, Habibur Rahman is the nephew of the informant. It appears from the materials on record that he was serving as a Homeguard under the Jogighopa Police Station at the time of the incident. From the evidence on record it further appears that he is the one who had initially informed the police and it was on the basis of his information, the police had reached the place of occurrence within minutes of the incident. CW-3 has stated that following a quarrel between the accused and Monuwara, the former had poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. According to CW-3, Monuwara was alive when she was taken to the hospital and she was also able to speak. Monuwara herself was crying out that her husband Sah Alom had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. CW-3 is also a inquest witness and he had proved his signature Ext-9(2) in the inquest report. During his cross-examination, CW-3 has admitted that the complainant Gulbahar was his uncle and Monuwara was his cousin. At the time of the incident he was at the Jogighopa Police Station. He did not see the incident. He had verbally informed the O/C of Jogighopa P.S. to come to the house of his uncle and at around 7.30 p.m. the O/C Mr. Talukdar had made a G.D. Entry and came to the place of occurrence with the police personnel. Mr. Talukdar was the O/C of Jogighopa Police Station.
31. From the evidence available on record it appears that the prosecution side had relied upon three different dying declarations of the victim viz., (1) the oral dying declaration made before the PWs-1, 5 and 6, (2) the dying declaration recorded in Page No.# 22/30 Ext-4 by the doctor (PW-8) on duty in the Chalantapara Mini PHC and (3) the dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate (PW-10) which is Ext-5. There is no wrangle at the bar that the conviction of the accused person in this case is entirely based on the aforesaid dying declarations and there is no other evidence available so as to connect the accused to the occurrence.
32. In so far as the oral dying declaration made before the PWs-1, 5 and 6 is concerned, we have noticed that in his deposition PW-1 has stated that on the day of the incident, immediately after the occurrence he, accompanied by PWs-9 and 6, had gone to the house of the accused and found his daughter lying there in a burnt condition. According to the PW-1, the victim was in a condition to speak and she had told him that the accused had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. However, in the ejahar Ext-1 lodged by the informant on the following day of the incident, there is no mention about the dying declaration. Moreover, PW-9 in his cross-examination has stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence alone but not with the PW-1. Likewise, PW-5 has also deposed that when they went to the house of the accused, PW-1 did not go with them. We also find from the testimony of PW-2 that she had also stated during her cross-examination that she did not see the PW-1 in the house of the accused. There is sufficient evidence available on record to establish that the PW-2 was one of the few persons who had reached to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and had poured water on the victim. But, as noted above, she did not see the PW-1 in the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the PW-1 had at all gone to the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence as claimed by him. If that be so, it is equally doubtful as to whether Page No.# 23/30 the victim had at all made any dying declaration in presence of the PW-1.
33. PW-5 has stated that on the day of the incident, upon hearing the commotion he first went to the house of the PW-1 and there he came to know that victim Monuwara was set ablaze by pouring kerosene upon her. In the meantime, Monuwara was taken to the hospital in a push cart and he had met her on the way and asked as to how she had caught fire. It was then that Monuwara had replied that the accused had set her ablaze. According to the PW-5, three other persons were with him at that time. However, none of the other witnesses had stated that they had seen the victim speaking to the PW-5. PW-1 also did not say that PW-5 had met the victim while she was being taken to the hospital in a push cart.
34. PW-6 has stated that accused Sah Alom and Monuwara used to quarrel over domestic issues but he has admitted that he had not stated before the police what he had said before the court today. According to PW-6, victim Monuwara was able to speak and on being asked, she replied that the accused had set her on fire by pouring kerosene. PWQ-2 and CW-2, however, have deposed that the victim was not in a position to speak and her tongue had also burnt. Although there was a gathering of a large number of persons in the place of occurrence, yet, none has seen the victim speak to the PWS-1, 5 and 6. Even the PWs-1, 5 and 6 have also not corroborated the fact that the victim had in fact spoken to them soon after the incident.
35. From a minute scrutiny of the testimonies of PWS-1, 5 and 6, viewed in the light of the F.I.R. (Ext-1), we find the claim of these witnesses of having heard the victim Page No.# 24/30 mention the name of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime and to have set her ablaze by pouring kerosene is very doubtful and hence, does not inspire the confidence of the court.
36. Ext-4 is the other dying declaration recorded by the doctor (PW-8). As per Ext- 4, the victim had told PW-8 in presence of her father (PW-1) that her husband had poured kerosene on her body and burnt her. However, PW-1 i.e. the father of the victim did not say so in his evidence nor did he mention in the ejahar that the victim was taken to the Chalantapara Mini PHC. Moreover, there is no clarity as to on whose request PW-8 had examined the victim and furnished his report Ext-4. As would be apparent from the evidence of PW-8 there was tampering and over-writing in the date mentioned below his signature in Ext-8. Ext-4 also did not record the statement of the victim in her exact words nor did the doctor (PW-8) certify that the victim was in a position to speak and was able to make oral dying declaration at that time. Therefore, Ext-4 is not found to be a reliable piece of evidence for convicting the accused.
37. In so far as the Ext-5 is concerned, the same was recorded by Executive Magistrate (PW-10). The contents of Ext-5 is being extracted herein below for ready reference :-
"My name and address are as mentioned above. I am 23 years old. I have been leading my conjugal life in my husband's house. I got married about 3 (three) years ago. I don't have any children till date. Few days ago I had a quarrel with my co-wife, i.e. the other wife of my husband as well as with my husband. My husband kept a dao and threatened me that he would either Page No.# 25/30 cut me or set me on fire. Around 6 pm on 24/8/12, while I was cooking food, my husband set fire to me after pouring kerosene over me. Later, hearing my cries, neighbours came and put off the fire by pouring water. Thereafter, my family members brought me to Bongaigaon Civil Hospital for treatment. That's all I have to say."
38. In Ext-5 CWs-1 and 2 have been shown as witnesses. However, as mentioned herein above, none of the two witnesses had either seen or heard PW-10 record the statement of the victim. The CW-2 has in fact stated that his signature was obtained in a blank paper. There is no clarity as to who had requisitioned or authorised the PW- 10 to record the dying declaration of the victim. There is also no explanation as to why the same was not recorded in presence of a doctor and/or the I.O. and after ascertaining her fitness to record such statement. The circumstances under which and the manner in which Ext-5 was recorded raises a genuine doubt as to the bonafide of the exercise, more so in the backdrop of the allegation levelled by the appellant that the dying declaration was managed by the Investigating Officer at the behest of CW-3, who was an employee serving under the police department at the relevant point of time. Besides the above, we find that the contents of Ext-5 is very detailed and orderly and is also too accurate to be stated by a victim with 80% burn injury having serious burn injury even on her tongue. There is, therefore, considerable doubt as to the credibility of Ext-5 stated to have been recorded by the PW-10.
39. It will also be significant to note herein that it has come out from the evidence of prosecution witness PW-2 that at the time of the occurrence the accused was catching fish in the Konaru beel. The aforesaid evidence finds due corroboration from the testimony of CW-2 who had also mentioned that the accused was catching fish Page No.# 26/30 along with himself and PWs-4 and 9 at the Konaru Beel and soon after receiving the information about his wife catching fire, they returned home together. PW-3 has also stated in his cross-examination he had seen the accused catching fish at the Konaru beel at the time of the occurrence. PWs-2 and 3 have not been declared as a hostile witness by the prosecution. If that be so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Raja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2005) 5 SCC 272 the evidence of PWs-2 & 3 would be binding on the prosecution more particularly, when relied upon by the defence side. Viewed from that angle, we find that there is evidence on record to establish that the accused person was not in his house when the incident took place. Therefore, the question of he setting the victim on fire by pouring kerosene cannot arise.
40. It is also to be noted herein that from the testimony of PW-2 and other prosecution witnesses it has come out that hearing commotion about the fire incident, a large number of villagers had gathered in the place of occurrence and doused the fire. But none of the persons present there have mentioned about smell of kerosene emanating either from the body of the victim or her wearing apparels . Even the I.O. had not sent the pieces of burnt cloth of the victim for FSL test so as to trace out kerosene in her apparel. The kerosene gallon seized by the I.O. (Mat. Ext-1) has also not been connected with the occurrence. Mere seizure of kerosene gallon, in our view, would be of no moment in this case since it has come out from the evidence lead by the prosecution side that there was no electricity in the village where the accused and the victim lived in and the cooking used to be conducted with the help of firewood. Under the circumstances, presence of a kerosene gallon in Page No.# 27/30 the kitchen has to be held to be a very normal affair.
41. PW-9 has stated that he has seen the accused crying after the occurrence. Had the accused set the victim on fire then it would be utterly absurd to presume that he would still be present in the place of occurrence to cry over the incident.
42. Law is settled that oral dying declaration is an important piece of evidence on which conviction can be based on. However, what is to be borne in mind is that oral dying declaration must be free from all infirmities and must appear to be natural, voluntary and truthful. The Court must also try to look for corroboration of the version stated in the oral dying declaration so as to satisfy itself that the same is free from any embellishments or infirmity. In Arun Bhanudas Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 11 SCC 232 the Supreme Court has observed that oral dying declaration made by the deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross-examination.
43. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Lichman & another reported in (2014) 12 SCC 670 the Supreme Court has held that oral dying declaration can form the basis of conviction if the deponent is found to be in a fit condition to make the declaration and if it is found to be truthful. The courts must, as a matter of prudence, look for corroboration of oral dying declaration.
44. In Waikhom Yaima Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 788 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that it would be the burden of the prosecution to prove that the dying declaration was wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful and that the maker thereof was in a fit medical condition to make it.
Page No.# 28/30
45. Coming to the facts of this case, as noticed above, we find that there are serious lacunae in recording Ext-5 to such an extent that it is doubtful as to whether the PW-10 had at all recorded the statement of the victim Monuwara. In so far as the PW-8 is concerned, there also, we find that there are serious lapses raising a question mark as to the credibility of Ext-4. PW-1 has also not supported the version of PW-8. That apart, no other witness has deposed before the court that the victim had in fact made oral dying declaration before the PW-8 in the Chalantapara Mini PHC.
46. In so far as the evidence of PWs-1, 5 and 6 is concerned, for the reasons stated here-in before, their testimonies are found to be full of material contradiction. Moreover, in the FIR lodged by the PW-1 there is no whisper of dying declaration of the victim. Hence, the version of the PWs 1,5 and 6 in so far as the dying declaration is concerned, is found to be wholly untrustworthy.
47. In the above context it will be pertinent to note herein that the victim had evidently received treatment in the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital for about 13 days before she succumbed to her burn injuries. However, during her stay at the hospital no other person had ever seen or heard the victim speaking. On the contrary, from the testimonies of PWs-2 and 3 it has come out that the victim was not in a position to speak after the incident. There is also no explanation as to why the dying declaration could not be recorded by the PW-10 in presence of a doctor or any other hospital staff. There is an element of mystery surrounding the circumstances under which EXT- 5 was recorded. Under the circumstances, in the absence of a doctor's certificate establishing the fact that the victim was fit to make a dying declaration, we are of Page No.# 29/30 the view that it would be highly unsafe to convict the accused solely based on dying declaration, particularly when there is cogent evidence on record to show that the accused was not present in the place of occurence when the incident took place.
48. The learned trial court has also observed that the accused had failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act. However, it is settled law that burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act would be cast upon the accused only if the prosecution succeeds in prima facie establishing the charge by leading cogent evidence. Having regard to the evidence brought on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that at the time of the incident the accused was not present in his house but was catching fish in the Konaru beel. In that view of the matter, there was no burden upon the accused under section 106 of the Evidence Act to offer any explanation in this case as to the circumstances under which the occurrence took place.
49. We may also mention herein that the co-wife of the accused Musstt. Johura Begum and one Musstt. Afruja Begum had apparently stated before the police that they had heard the victim say that she was set ablaze by pouring kerosene on her person. Noticing that those two witnesses were not examined as witnesses, this court had, by order dated 21.01.2020, directed the learned trial court to record additional evidence in the form of testimony of those two witnesses. Accordingly, evidence of Musstt. Johura Begum and Musstt. Afruja Begum were recorded by the court as CWs-
Page No.# 30/30 4 and 5 and the records were transmitted back to this court. A perusal of the testimonies of CWs 4 and 5 goes to show that these two witnesses also did not support the prosecution case. However, since their evidence is found to be in total contradiction to their statements made before the police, we do not find their evidence to be reliable at all and hold that their evidence is liable to be discarded.
50. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, there is genuine doubt in this case as regards the circumstances under which the victim had caught fire. The possibility that the victim might have accidentally caught fire while working in the kitchen cannot be altogether ruled out.
51. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2018 is found to be unsustainable in the eye of law. The same is accordingly set aside. The appellant stands acquitted.
We are informed that the accused/appellant is presently in the custody. We, therefore, direct that the appellant be forthwith released from custody if his custodial detention is not found to be necessary in connection with any other proceeding.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant