Gauhati High Court
Jamal Uddin Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam on 12 September, 2022
Author: N. Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh, Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/23
GAHC010233862017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRL.A(J)/24/2017
JAMAL UDDIN BARBHUIYA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
2:MD. ABDUL SATTAR BARBHUIYA
S/O-LT. WAZID ALI BARBHUIYA
VILL-DHANIPUR
P.S.-LALA
DIST.-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : AMICUS CURIAE
Advocate for the Respondent :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
12.09.2022 (N. Kotiswar Singh, J) Heard Mr. A. H. Alamgir, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor, Page No.# 2/23 Assam for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No.09/2014 by which the appellant was found guilty of the offences under Sections 448/302 IPC, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 302 of IPC.
3. The facts in brief leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant may be stated briefly as follows:-
An Ejahar was lodged on 04.06.2009 by one Abdul Sattar Barbhuiya, father of the deceased Sirajun Nehar, daughter of the informant and wife of the appellant. As per the said FIR, it was alleged that the deceased Mustt. Sirajun Nehar was tortured by the appellant after her marriage because of which she took shelter in the informant's house. On 03.06.2009, she went to the house of the informant's brother Abdul Jabbar, uncle of the deceased located near the informant's house. Thereafter, at about 11 A.M., the appellant came to the house of Abdul Jabbar and asked his daughter to go with him, which she refused. Thereafter, the appellant struck her with a dao causing severe injuries leading to her death. The appellant, thereafter, tried to run from the spot but was apprehended by the neighbourers and handed over to the police.
Page No.# 3/23 Based on the said Ejahar, a police case being Lala Police Station Case No.116/2009 under Sections 448/302 of IPC was registered on 04.06.2009 and investigation launched.
4. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged of committing the following offences:-
First, the appellant on or about 03.06.2009 at about 11 A.M. at Dhanipur committed house trespass by entering into the house of one Abdul Jabbar, which was used as a dwelling place and which was in possession of the said Jabbar with intent to commit an offence of criminal trespass and house trespass and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC.
Secondly, the appellant on or about the date, time and place, committed murder intentionally causing death of his wife Mustt. Sirajun Nessa and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and adduced necessary evidences.
6. On completion of recording of evidences of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by the Court. The appellant took the plea of total denial stating that the allegations were false. He claimed that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He also declined to lead any evidence in his defence.
Page No.# 4/23
7. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidences on record, convicted the appellant as mentioned above.
8. Mr. Alamgir, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised a number of grounds to challenge the conviction of the appellant, including that the witnesses had made contradictory statements. It has been alleged that the weapon of crime was not produced during the trial. It has been also alleged that mens rea has not been established.
9. Before we consider and appreciate the various contentions raised in this appeal, which we will deal in more detail later, it will be apposite to briefly refer to the evidences on record.
10. PW1, Abdul Rejak Barbhuiya, is the uncle of the deceased in whose house the incident occurred. He deposed that the deceased is his niece. He stated that after marriage of her niece with the appellant, it came to their knowledge that prior to the said marriage, the appellant was married for 5/6 times earlier and his earlier wives had left the appellant because of the violence inflicted upon them by the appellant. He stated that his deceased- niece was living with the appellant as wife for about two years during which period she gave birth to a female child. Because of the physical violence perpetrated by the appellant to his niece, his niece came to his residence with her child. He stated that after about half an hour of their arrival, the appellant also came to his house on a bicycle. He stated that at that time, his niece was Page No.# 5/23 at the house of her uncle Abdul Jabbar which is located in the same homestead land and that there was conversation between the deceased and the appellant. PW1 stated that at around 9 A.M., he went to have his meal and suddenly he heard cries of his niece "Babuji..Jamal has inflicted blow by means of dao on me". On hearing the said cry, he rushed there, by which time the appellant had inflicted 2/3 dao blows on his niece. Though he chased the appellant, he failed to catch him. The appellant was, however, caught by the villagers and was kept confined in the house of Sayad Ali Panchaya. By that time, the police was informed and police arrived there and the appellant confessed his guilt to the police before the villagers.
PW1 was cross-examined at length during which he stated that he did not witness when the appellant gave the first dao blow to the deceased. He denied many suggestions put to him by the defence. However, he stated that the seized dao was not available in the Court on that day.
11. PW2, namely, Abdul Sattar Barbhuiya, is the father of the deceased and father-in-law of the appellant. He also stated that his daughter was married to the appellant about 5 years ago and she gave birth to a female child. He stated that after 2/3 years of the marriage, because of the differences which arose between his daughter and the appellant, his daughter left the house of the appellant and came to the house of his brother Abdul Rejjak with the child. After 3/4 days of her visit at the house of his brother, one morning at about 8 to 9 A.M., the appellant came to the house of his brother to take back his Page No.# 6/23 daughter but his daughter refused to go with the appellant and also declined to hand over the female child to the appellant. He stated that at that time, he was in his house, which is situated about ½ a mile away from the house of his said brother. PW2 stated that upon a hullah raised by his brother, Abdul Rejjak, that the appellant had inflicted dao blow on his daughter, he chased the appellant along with other villagers and at that time, he came out from his house and saw the appellant in the house of Samad Master after being caught. He then went to see his daughter who was found dead with cut injuries on her forehead, waist and stomach. Thereafter, he lodged the Ejahar. He stated that police seized one dao.
During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the occurrence but stated that the appellant was caught in the house of one Faijul Haque.
12. The next prosecution witness is Samsul Huda Laskar, who was examined as PW3, who stated that he did not know under what circumstances the deceased died and, as such, his testimony is not of much relevance.
13. PW4 is Sabira Begum, who is the aunt of the deceased. She stated that her deceased-niece Sirajun Nehar was married to the appellant about four years ago and on the day of the occurrence, she and her child were present in the house. She also mentioned of an earlier incident where the appellant wanted to take her niece back but she refused. She stated that on the day of the occurrence, on hearing an alarm raised by her daughter, Suraiya Begum, Page No.# 7/23 she rushed to the place and saw the appellant leaving the place with a dao in his hand. When she entered the room, she saw the deceased profusely bleeding on the floor with cut injuries. Thereafter, her daughter raised a hue and cry upon which local people assembled and apprehended the appellant by chasing him and handed over to the police.
In the cross-examination, she stated that she went to the place of occurrence after she heard the hue and cry and she did not see the incident herself. She cannot say whether her daughter Suraiya Begum who was in the verandah had seen the incident or not. She also stated that the police did not record her statement.
14. PW5, Shamim Uddin Barbhuiya, stated that the deceased was his cousin. He stated that on the day of the occurrence, while he was returning from school, on the way he heard hue and cry in the house of the appellant. Accordingly, he went there and saw the dead-body of his cousin lying on the ground with bleeding. He saw the appellant being restrained by the villagers.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not notice any cut injury on the body of the deceased. He mentioned of villagers restraining the appellant and surrounding him at that time. He also stated that the relation between the deceased and the appellant was good prior to the incident and the appellant was a pious man and he never heard of any criminal activity against him.
Page No.# 8/23
15. PW6, Mahibur Rehman Choudhury, is the Investigating Officer of the case.
16. PW7, Dr. Samrjit Chakrabarty, mentioned about performance of post mortem examination by one Dr. K. Sharma. After the death of the said Dr. Sharma, his colleague Dr. Samrjit Chakrabarty was examined as PW7, who stated on the basis of the post mortem report that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-
"(i) One deep sharp cut injury over left side of the scalp and skull of length 4 ½", breadth 1 ½". Brain matter has come out.
(ii) One sharp cut injury on right side of back of 9 inch long, 3 inch width, ½ inch depth,
(iii) One sharp cut injury below the No.(ii) injury of 7 inch long, 1 ½ inch width, ½ inch depth,
(iv) One sharp cut injury posterior mid right forearm of 1 ½ inch long, ½ inch width, ¼ inch depth."
As per the report of the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination, death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries sustained. He also identified the signature of Dr. K. Sharma and also the signature of Joint Director of Health Services, Hailakandi appended on the post mortem report.
17. Mr. Alamgir, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that from the above evidences, certain contradictions are clearly visible. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, PW1 stated that marriage was solemnised about 7-8 years ago before the incident. On the other hand, in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, it has been mentioned that marriage took place Page No.# 9/23 about two years ago. PW2 also stated that the appellant married the deceased about 5 years ago. On the other hand, PW4 stated that her niece was married about four years ago. Though PW1 stated that the appellant married the deceased about 4 to 5 years ago and his previous wives had left him, in the cross-examination, he denied the said statement. During cross-examination, PW1 could not mention the names of the earlier 5 to 6 wives of the appellant. Accordingly, it has been stated that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 are not consistent as regards the marriage of the deceased with the appellant.
18. It is also submitted that there is no consistency as regards the time when the appellant was married to the deceased. While some say it was four years ago, some say 7 to 8 years.
19. Further, it has been submitted by Mr. Alamgir that as regards the time of occurrence, it is also not consistent. While PW1 stated that it was 9 A.M., in the FIR, it has been mentioned as 11 A.M. in the deposition. It has been also submitted that though PW1, Abdul Rejjak Barbhuiya stated that he heard the cries "Babuji....Jamal has inflicted blow by means of dao on me", nobody else had heard that cry though the other witnesses were very much located near the place of occurrence.
20. It has been further submitted that PW1 stated that 5/6 months before the occurrence, the deceased was living in their house. On the other hand, it was mentioned in the Ejahar that the deceased came to her parents' house and after three days, the incident had occurred. Thus, that there is no Page No.# 10/23 consistency as to when the deceased had come to the house of her parents. It has been further submitted that though PW1 had stated that his wife was present near the place of occurrence, she was not examined.
21. It was also contended that while PW1 stated that the appellant was caught at the house of Abdus Samad and Faijul Haque by the villagers and was confined in the house of Sayad Ali Panchaya, the said Sayad Ali Panchaya was not examined.
22. It has been further submitted that PW2 had stated that the police had seized one dao but the same was not produced in the Court. Further, PW3 had stated that he did not know under what circumstances, the deceased died.
23. As regards the other inconsistencies, Mr. Alamgir states that PW4 had deposed that her daughter Suraiya Begum was present at the time of the incident, who raised the alarm that the appellant had murdered the deceased by inflicting cut injuries but the said Suraiya Begum was also not examined. On the other hand, she admitted during cross-examination that she did not witness the incident as she was busy in drying and clearing paddy. PW4 also stated that she could not say whether her daughter had seen the incident or not.
24. It has been also submitted that the police did not record the statement of PW5, who stated that the appellant was a pious man and did not hear about any criminal activity against the appellant which indicates that the case against the appellant has been falsely foisted.
Page No.# 11/23
25. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that though the Investigating Officer, PW6, had stated that he had seized one boti dao, which was found lying near the dead-body, such weapon was not produced before the Court. Similarly, the bi-cycle on which the appellant had allegedly come to the house where the deceased was staying was also not seized.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that Dr. Samrjit Chakraborty, who was examined as PW7, was not the doctor who performed post mortem on the dead-body of the deceased and, as such, his evidence cannot be relied upon.
27. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that if the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is closely examined, it would reveal that he had denied the allegation that the appellant had married 5/6 times earlier and his previous wives had deserted him. He also denied that due to assault by him, his wife had come to the parental house with the child. He also denied that he had confessed his guilt before the villagers. He also denied the statement that after 2/3 months, a dispute arose between him and his wife. He also denied that he had inflicted blows on the deceased. He also denied that PW4 had given a statement about committing murder by him. Thus, the assertions made by the prosecution witnesses are false.
28. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Sessions Judge also acknowledged in the judgment that there were clear contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and prosecution has not Page No.# 12/23 examined Suraiya Begum, who was present along the deceased as mentioned by PW4.
29. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive or intention for committing the said crime has not been established by the prosecution, in absence of which a person cannot be convicted for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC.
30. It has been also submitted that the boti dao is used to cut vegetables and the said weapon which was allegedly seized was not produced in course of the trial. Such a weapon cannot be brought by the appellant as it is used for cutting vegetables, which is normally found in the kitchen.
31. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is full of contradictions and, as such, cannot be relied upon. The weapon of crime, though was seized, was not exhibited before the Trial Court. The persons, who were supposed to be at the place of occurrence, were not examined. Moreover, the intention or motive of the crime has not been proved by the prosecution.
32. It has been also submitted that if the evidences of the prosecution witnesses are to be believed that there was a quarrel between the wife and the husband, the possibility of such injuries being inflicted while there was a scuffle between the wife and the husband cannot be ruled out in which event the offence can be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304-II of IPC.
Page No.# 13/23
33. Mr. Alamgir, learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submissions has relied on the following decisions:-
1. Laxman Kalu Nikalje Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 1390;
2. Indal Singh Vs. State of MP (Crl. Appeal 651 of 2010) by the Madhya Pradesh High Court;
3. Swapan Bardhan Vs. State of Assam, (2014) 4 GLT 670;
4. Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2010) 2 SCC 333.
34. Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that it is a case where the prosecution has been able to prove all the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Though the incident might not have been witnessed by any of the witnesses, there is sufficient evidence that soon after the incident, the appellant was seen running away from the place of occurrence. There is clear evidence to the effect that the appellant had visited the place of occurrence apparently to convince her to come along with him to her matrimonial home. There is also evidence on record that one of the witnesses, PW1 had witnessed the deceased being assaulted by the appellant. The fact remains that the appellant was apprehended by the villagers while he was trying to flee from the place of occurrence.
35. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the nature of the injury received by the deceased, it is clear that the deceased had received injuries which were fatal in nature and from the Page No.# 14/23 aforesaid injuries, necessary intention can be inferred. There is already evidence to the effect that the relation between the appellant and the deceased was strained because of which the deceased had left his house and came to her parental house though she was at the house of her uncle at the time of occurrence.
36. It has been further submitted that PW1, PW2 and PW4 had seen the appellant along with the deceased and the incident occurred soon thereafter and the time gap between the time of occurrence and the time when they were seen together was so narrow that the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased. In support of her submission, Ms. Bhuyan has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramani Vs. State by Inspector of Police, (2003) 10 SCC 185.
37. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
38. From the evidence, it can be said to have been established that on the day of the occurrence, the appellant had come to the house where the deceased was staying. The fact of coming of the appellant has been fully corroborated by the evidence of PW1, who stated that he saw the appellant and the deceased discussing among themselves. Similarly, PW2 also stated that he saw the appellant coming to the house of his brother where the deceased was staying to take back his daughter. PW4, aunt of the deceased, also stated that she had seen the appellant coming to her house and trying to Page No.# 15/23 persuade the deceased to go with him to which she had refused. Thus, visit of the appellant to the house where the incident occurred appears to be established by the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. Though there is no eye witness account at the time when the actual assault took place, the fact remains that soon after the incident had happened, he was apprehended by the villagers, this fact has been also stated by PW1, PW2 and PW4. Thus, presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence is clearly established.
39. The next fact, which is said to have been established, is that he was apprehended by the villagers and thereafter handed over to the police. This fact, in itself, however, does not implicate the appellant. This aspect has to be seen in the context of other evidences which have come out in the record.
PW1 categorically states that after he heard a cry from the deceased that the appellant had struck her with a dao, went to the place of occurrence and he saw the appellant inflicting 2/3 blows on the deceased and the appellant was chased and apprehended by the local people inside his homestead land. Though in the cross-examination, he also admitted that he (PW1) did not see the appellant giving the first dao blow to the deceased, yet, no question was asked about the subsequent dao blows given to the deceased. It is on record that the deceased had suffered multiple injuries on his head and back, viz., one deep sharp cut injury over the left side of scalp and skull causing the brain matter to come out, one sharp cut injury on right side and back, another sharp cut injury below the right side and back and also another Page No.# 16/23 sharp cut injury at the posterior mid right forearm and the 9 th and 10th rib exposed because of the said injuries. The deceased received multiple injuries on her body.
Thus, in absence of any challenge by the defence or questioning by the defence as to the other blows, which would have caused the said injuries except for the first blow, it can be said that the testimony of PW1 that he saw the appellant inflicting 2/3 dao blows on the deceased can be said to have remained unchallenged.
40. The evidence of PW1 that though he did not see the first blow but saw the subsequent 2/3 blows would establish the fact that it was the appellant who caused the fatal blows on the body of the deceased. The said evidence of PW1 stands corroborated by the evidence of PW4 who stated in her evidence that after hearing the hue and cry raised by his daughter, Suraiya, that the appellant had murdered the deceased by inflicting cut injury, she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased leaving the place with a dao in his hand and when she entered the room, she saw the deceased lying with cut injuries and was bleeding. PW4 even though did not herself witness the actual assault by the appellant on the deceased, she saw the appellant running away from the place of occurrence with a dao in his hand soon after the incident, who was soon apprehended by the local people. Thus, even if for the sake of argument, we discount the evidence of PW1 that he saw the actual assault by the appellant, PW4 corroborates that the appellant was seen trying to run Page No.# 17/23 away from the place of occurrence with dao in his hand and thereafter, the villagers had apprehended him. Thus, presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence with a weapon in his hand appears to be fully corroborated.
41. As regards the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that there are contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses as regards his past life, we are of the view that these aspects as to whether the appellant was married earlier several times to other women or as to when the deceased was actually married to the appellant are not really material. The fact remains that it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant was married to the deceased and the deceased had left her matrimonial home because of certain disagreement between them and the deceased had returned to her parental house and the appellant had come to take her back. Therefore, the clear inference that can be drawn on the basis of the evidence is that it was the appellant who caused the injuries to the deceased because of the strained relationship.
42. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the motive has not been established and the prosecution has not been able to establish that the appellant had clear intention to kill his wife. It has been submitted that if the appellant had the real intention to kill his wife, there was no reason why he would try to persuade her to return to her matrimonial house. According to learned counsel for the appellant, from the evidence, it Page No.# 18/23 appears that certain scuffle might have taken place between the deceased and the appellant, which might have resulted in injuries, which was without any premeditation.
43. As regards this contention, we are, however, not able to persuade ourselves to accept it for the reason that from the nature of the injuries received by the deceased as indicated in the post-mortem report, it is clearly evident that the deceased had received a sharp cut injury on head and skull which led to the brain material to come out. Such an injury could not have been caused unless force was used with a sharp weapon. It would be most unlikely that such injuries could be the result of a mere scuffle as sought to be portrayed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Scuffle between the parties involving sharp weapon at best can result in some of the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report, i.e., sharp cut injuries at posterior mid right forearm or injury No.3 as mentioned in the post-mortem report. But we are unable to understand how there can be sharp cut injury on the right side and back of the body. Further ribs were also exposed, which can be caused only when certain amount of force is used with the sharp weapon. Thus, it does not appear that the injuries were accidental in nature due to scuffle between two adults involving a sharp weapon as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has also not been shown by the appellant that he also had suffered any injury, which in all likelihood be caused if there was really a scuffle between two adults with a sharp weapon. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the appellant had suffered any cut injury. Though learned Page No.# 19/23 counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant received injuries, that cannot be taken into consideration in absence of any material evidence on record, either oral or documentary. Materials on record do not indicate any injury on the body of the appellant. What we see is that it is the deceased who received one deep sharp cut injury over left side of scalp and skull of 4 ½"
long and 1 ½" broad because of which brain matter came out. The said injury caused on the vital part of the body does not conform to the submission advanced that the injuries could have been accidental due to scuffle between the deceased and the appellant because of matrimonial dispute.
44. Though, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no any prior intention to cause the death of the deceased when he arrived at the place of occurrence, thus, there may not be any premeditation, yet from the nature of the injuries caused to the body of the deceased, it certainly indicates that he had the knowledge that such injuries could cause death of a person. By the nature of the injury received on the skull, it can be inferred that he had the intention to cause death of the deceased.
45. Non-production of the weapon of crime, in our view, considering the nature of the injuries sustained as reflected in the post-mortem report will not be fatal to the prosecution case.
46. As regards the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the doctor who actually performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was not examined but somebody else was Page No.# 20/23 examined, it is to be mentioned that the doctor, who performed post-mortem examination had expired and the other doctor, PW7, who was examined, stated that on 03.06.2009, he was attached to Civil Hospital, Hailakandi and on that day, Dr. K. Sharma had performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sirajun Nessa. PW7, thus, clearly established the identity of the Dr. K. Sharma, who performed the post-mortem examination and he also identified the signature of Joint Director of Health Services, Hailakandi who had appended his signature on the post-mortem report. In any event, no question was asked during cross-examination to doubt the contents of the post-mortem report.
47. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the proof of the post- mortem examination report by PW7 does not suffer from any material defect.
48. From the nature of the injuries, which are mentioned in the post- mortem report and as the death was not suicidal but homicidal in nature, which was caused by a sharp weapon and since the presence of the appellant was established at the place of occurrence and at the time of occurrence, who tried to flee from the place of occurrence soon after the incident, as established by the evidence of PW1 and PW4, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it was none other than the appellant, who had caused the death of the deceased by using a sharp weapon.
49. From the nature of the injuries caused on the skull of the deceased, we can make the inference that the appellant knew that such a bodily injury would Page No.# 21/23 cause death or in most likely to cause death. However, it has not been conclusively established that the appellant had come with the intention of killing his wife. It appears to have happened after the deceased refused to go with the appellant. Thus, considering the entire evidences and circumstances as discussed above, we convert the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 (twelve) years. We also make it clear that the period of custody already undergone by the appellant during the investigation and trial and after his conviction will be set off against the aforesaid period of 12 (twelve) years.
50. From the judgment, we do not find that any order for payment of compensation to the victim or the dependants of the victim has been given by the Trial Court.
51. As per Section 357A Cr.P.C, compensation is to be given to the victim or his dependants, who has suffered loss or injury as a result of a crime and who requires rehabilitation in terms of the Scheme that may be prepared by the State Government.
It has been submitted that the Government of Assam has prepared a Scheme being Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012. The victim in the present case is the wife of the appellant, who had left behind one girl child when she died. As per the aforesaid Scheme, an amount of Rupees Five Lakhs is to be awarded to the victim or dependants of the victim. Thus, the said girl Page No.# 22/23 child would be entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only.
Accordingly, it is directed that the aforesaid amount of Rupees Five Lakhs shall be given to the said girl child who was born to the appellant and the deceased from their wedlock. Hailakandi District Legal Services Authority will ascertain as to the real identity and particulars of the girl child left behind by the deceased. Upon such identification, the State Government will pay the aforesaid amount in her name. Out of the amount of Rupees Five Lakhs, an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs will be kept as fixed deposit in a scheduled bank in her name and the remaining amount of Rupees Two Lakhs may be utilized for her educational and other expenses. As far as financial management of the aforesaid compensation amount is concerned, it will be managed by Abdul Sattar Barbhuiya, father of the deceased and grandfather of the child during the period of her minority.
52. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
53. Let the LCR be returned to the concerned Court.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page No.# 23/23