IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS …jorhatjudiciary.gov.in/jmt/2016/july/adj/Sessions Case...
Transcript of IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS …jorhatjudiciary.gov.in/jmt/2016/july/adj/Sessions Case...
1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JORHAT
Present ;- Mrs. Suchandra Bhattacharjee,
Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE NO.06/13
G.R.CASE NO 61/2012
Committing Magistrate :
Sri D.Barman,
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Majuli,
Jorhat.
State of Assam
Vs.
1.Sri Ranjan Pegu Alias Rajani Pegu
S/o Late Sridhar Pegu
2. Smti.Jogamaya Kuli Pegu
Wife of Sri Ranjan Pegu
Both are residents of- Natun Muwamari Gaon,
P.S.Jengraimukh, Jorhat. ……Accused persons.
APPEARANCE :
Sri Siddique Ali, Additional Public Prosecutor – for the State.
Sri Powal Chandra Hazarika, Advocate – for the accused person.
Charge framed under section 302/34 of I.P.C.
Date of recording Prosecution evidence:
05.09.13,11.11.13,29.11.13,07.12.13,04.01.14,29.01.14,20.05.14,
03.06.14,01.07.14, 09.12.14 & 29.04.15.
Date of recording statement U/S 313 Cr P C : 29.05.15.
Date of Argument : 23.06.16 & 11.07.16
Date of Judgment : 11.07.16
2
JUDGMENT
1] The prosecution case in brief is that informant Dibya Kuli, on 05.06.12,
lodged an FIR at Nayabazar police out post stating inter alia that Ranjan Pegu
alias Rajani Pegu remarried his sister Pallavi Kuli Pegu about one and half years
back during the lifetime of his first wife but on 05.05.2012 at about 9.00 p.m. he
killed his sister by setting her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her.
2] After receiving the FIR, in charge Nayabazar police out post forwarded
the FIR to the Jengraimukh police station. The officer in charge Jengraimukh P.S
after receiving the same registered it as Jengraimukh P.S.Case No. 17/2012 U/S
304(B) IPC. Thereafter, investigating officer took up the investigation of the
instant case and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet
against the accused namely Sri Ranjan Pegu alias Rajani Pegu and Smti.
Jogamaya Pegu u/s 304(B)/34 IPC and thereafter the learned lower after
appearance of the accused persons, committed the case to the Sessions Court as
the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. After committal of the instant
case, the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, after hearing the learned counsels for
both sides and perusing the materials on record, framed charge u/s 302/34 IPC
against the accused persons and read over and explained the contents of the
charge to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After
framing charge learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat transferred the case to this court
for disposal.
3] The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as seventeen
witnesses. The accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P C
wherein they denied the prosecution case. Though they desired to adduce
evidence in their defence but failed to adduce the same even after taking time
repeatedly.
4] Point for determination in this case is :
Whether the prosecution, could prove beyond all reasonable
doubt, that the accused persons on 05.05.12, at about 09.00 p.m. at
Natun Muwamari Gaon, under Jengraimukh police station, caused the
3
death of the deceased Pallavi Kuli Pegu, by setting her on fire by
pouring kerosene oil on her, with the intention to cause her death?
5] Heard the argument placed by learned counsels for both the sides and
considered the entire materials available on record.
6] The learned counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Siddique Ali, has submitted
that prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing cogent
evidence which is well corroborated by the medical evidence. It is submitted that
the prosecution case is well supported by all its witnesses except P.W.12 and 13
and perusal of the evidence of the said witnesses clearly reveals that the accused
persons by pouring kerosene oil on the deceased burnt her alive and the
evidence on record. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.13
cannot be relied on as P.W.13 is the brother of the accused and P.W.12 is the
sister- in -law of the accused. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses very
clearly deposed that the accused persons used to demand dowry from the
deceased and also inflicted mental and physical torture on her to meet such
demand. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals the motive of
the accused persons as per which the accused persons used to inflict torture on
the deceased due to demand of dowry. It appears that the P.W.9 Morom Jyoti
Pegu deposed that before the incident in the month of January he saw the
accused persons to beat the deceased while he was crossing their home and
after seeing the same he brought the deceased to her parental home. The other
prosecution witnesses also corroborated the fact that the accused persons used
to inflict mental and physical torture on the deceased to meet their demand of
dowry. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence as adduced by
P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 regarding the oral dying declaration made by the
deceased.
7] On the other hand the learned counsel for the defence, Mr.Powal Hazarika,
submitted that the prosecution witnesses from P.W.1 to P.W.10 belongs to the
parental home of the deceased and their evidence cannot be relied on as there
is a vital contradiction in their evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution has
failed to examine any of the witnesses staying near the house of the accused
persons to prove its case. It is submitted that there is no written dying
declaration of the deceased on record and if the deceased in fact, was in a state
4
to speak then absence of any written dying declaration on record casts a serious
doubt on the prosecution case. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.13 who categorically deposed that the
accused persons were not at the place of occurrence during the time of incident.
It is further contended that the aforesaid witnesses cannot be disbelieved as they
went to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and saw the
deceased in burning condition and who in their presence told to them that she
burnt on her own.
8] To arrive at a judicious decision let at the outset the entire evidence
adduced by the prosecution be sifted.
9] P.W.1 Sri Dibya Kuli, is the informant. He deposed that his deceased sister
Pallavi was the second wife of the accused Ranjan Pegu. At the time of marriage,
his deceased sister was studying in college. About 1 and ½ years back from the
date of occurrence the accused and his deceased sister got married. The accused
Ranjan Pegu, her deceased sister Pallavi and accused Jogayama Pegu used to
reside together. He deposed that on 05.05.12, he got information from one
person that both the accused persons put kerosene oil on the body of Pallavi and
burnt her. After getting the said information, he immediately rushed to the house
of the accused parsons but there he found only accused Jogamaya Pegu and
when he enquired from her about her sister. Then she told him that Pallavi Pegu
is taken to Jorhat Civil hospital. After getting the said information from the
accused Jogamaya, he started for Jorhat Hospital but on the way he found his
sister Pallavi at Kamalabari ghat in a totally burnt condition. He was accompanied
with accused Ranjan Pegu and his brother. After seeing his sister in such a bad
condition he returned back and informed police about the said incident. He
proved the FIR as Ext 1 and Ext. 1(1) as his signature. He deposed that when he
saw his sister, she was able to speak and when he enquired that what happened
to her, on that she replied that the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya
Pegu poured three liters of kerosene oil on her and burnt her. He deposed that
his sister Pallavi died on the subsequent date of the incident. He deposed that
the accused persons did not inform him anything about the incident. He further
deposed that the accused persons burnt his sister Pallavi for not fulfilling the
demand of money.
5
In his cross examination he deposed that Pallavi got married with the
accused Ranjan Pegu without the consent of their family. His deceased sister
went to Ranjan Pegu to marry him 3 times and all the 3 times their family
members got her back from the house of the accused. Thereafter, again his
sister ran away to the house of Ranjan Pegu and married him. After the marriage
of accused Ranjan Pegu and his deceased sister Pallavi, they were having contact
with them. The house of accused persons is about 1and ½ kms away from their
house. He deposed that the person who informed him about the incident belongs
to the same village of the accused persons and he informed him about the said
incident at about 9 p.m. on 05.05.12. After getting the information of the said
incident, he did not go the place of the accused persons immediately as he did
not believe the said information. But in the morning he went to the house of the
accused persons and there he found accused Jogamaya and asked her about his
sister Pallavi. Then she told him that she has been taken to Jorhat civil hospital.
He denied the fact that he has not told to the police that the accused persons
Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu put kerosene on her sister and burnt her. He
denied the fact that he has not told to the police that after getting the
information of the aforesaid incident he has gone to the house of the accused
persons to see his sister and further denied the fact to have not told to the police
that after coming to know from Jogamaya that his sister is taken to Jorhat Civil
hospital he went to Kamalabari ghat .He denied that at Kamalabari ghat he did
not meet his sister Pallavi in burnt condition or that his sister did not tell him that
the accused persons poured three liters of kerosene oil on her and burnt her. He
denied the fact that he has stated before the police that he got information about
the incident from accused Ranjan Pegu .He deposed that after the incident he
never got in touch with the accused Ranjan Pegu. He denied the fact that his
sister Pallavi herself got burnt or that the accused persons did not burn his sister
Pallavi or that the accused Ranjan to save his sister from getting burnt got his
hand burnt. He denied that he has not stated before the police that the accused
persons burnt his sister for not fulfilling the demand of money or that the
accused persons never demanded money from his sister Pallavi.
10] P.W.2 Sri Bholanath Kuli, is the father of the deceased. He deposed that
his deceased daughter Pallavi was the second wife, of the accused Ranjan Pegu.
The incident took place on 05.05.12 at about 9 p.m. he got information from one
6
person of the village of the accused that both the accused persons put kerosene
oil on the body of Pallavi and bunt her. After getting the said information, he
hurriedly rushed to the house of the accrued persons. There he found his
daughter Pallavi in a totally burnt condition. Her body was almost burnt except
her face. He found both the accused persons at their house. He deposed that his
daughter was able to speak at that time. After asking his daughter, about her
condition, she told him that as he did not fulfill the demand of accused Ranjan,
they burnt her. He deposed that his daughter Pallavi got married with the
accused Ranjan Pegu about one and four months prior to the date of occurrence.
Pallavi did not have any child. After seeing his daughter in such a condition he
went in trauma and moved out from that place. His daughter Pallavi died on the
next day of the occurrence at Jorhat civil hospital. He deposed that after the
marriage, Pallavi visited three times to her parental home and during then she
complained that the accused Ranjan Pegu demands money from her.
In his cross examination he deposed that he got information of the
incident from one Punyeswar Kuli. After getting the information he along with his
wife went to the house of the accused persons. He denied that he has not told to
the police that after coming to know about the incident he immediately went to
the house of the accused persons or that his daughter told him that as he could
not meet the demand of the accused person Ranjan Pegu, therefore the accused
persons burnt her or that his daughter told him that the accused Ranjan Pegu
demands money from her.
11] P.W.3 Smt. Rohini Kuli is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that
her deceased daughter, Pallavi was the second wife of the accused Ranjan Pegu.
On the same day of the occurrence, she got the information of the incident from
one person of their village. After getting the information she along with her
husband went to her daughter’s place and when they reached there she saw her
daughter in a totally burnt condition, her face was not totally burnt. On being
asked, she told her that the accused Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu by
pouring kerosene on her bunt her. Seeing her daughter, in such a condition she
fainted on the spot. Thereafter, her daughter was taken to Jorhat civil hospital
and on the subsequent day her daughter expired in the hospital. Her daughter
after six months of her marriage came to her home and told him that the
accused is demanding Rupees One lakh and to meet the demand of the accused
7
she sold her land and cows and managed Rs.50, 000/ and gave it to her
daughter but could not pay the remaining Rs.50,000.00 to the accused. She
deposed that the accused threatened her daughter that if the balance amount is
not paid by her then he will kill her and that is why he killed her daughter.
In her cross examination she deposed that her home is about one mile
away from the house of the accused. She got the information of the incident at
about 9 p.m. and on the same day of the incident, she and her husband went to
the place of occurrence on foot. She deposed at the place of occurrence, lots of
people were gathered and her daughter was lying on the courtyard of her house.
When her daughter told to her about the fact that the accused Ranjan Pegu and
Jogayama Pegu burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her at that time other
village people were also there. She denied the fact that after getting the
information of the incident she did not go to the place of occurrence or that her
daughter did not tell her anything and also denied to have not stated before the
police about the same. She deposed that after seeing her daughter in such a
condition she went into shock and thereafter what happened she cannot say. She
got the information of her daughter’s death from one village person. She
deposed that the amount of Rs.50,000.00 was given by her husband to her. She
denied to have not stated before the police that accused demanded one lakh
rupees from her daughter or they gave Rs.50,000.00 to meet the demand of the
accused person. She deposed that her daughter went on her own will to the
accused. As there was no social marriage between her daughter and the accused
so there was no Mitir (social custom) held between both of their family members
and therefore her daughter used to come to their home secretly. She denied the
fact that as there was no Mitir held between both the families therefore her
daughter did not come to her house.
12] P.W.4 Sri Hekim Kuli, deposed that he knows both the accused persons
namely Ranjan Pegu and Smti Jogamaya Pegu. Both of them belong to their
village. He also knew the deceased Pallavi Pegu, she was the second wife of
accused Ranjan Pegu. The deceased and the accused got married about 1 ½
years back from the date of incident. He came to know from village people that
both the accused persons burnt Pallavi. Thereafter, he came to know that the
victim died on the subsequent day of the incident.
8
In his cross examination he deposed that he came to know about the
incident from the father of the deceased Pallavi. After getting the information of
the incident he did not go to the house of the accused. Pallavi Pegu married the
accused Ranjan against their will. He denied the fact that the father of the
deceased did not inform him about the incident.
13] P.W.5 Sri Debojit Kuli deposed that he knows both the accused persons,
deceased Pallavi was his niece. The deceased was married to the accused Ranjan
Pegu about more than 2 years back. He came to know about the incident from
his nephew Dibya Kuli, who informed him that the accused Ranjan Pegu by
pouring kerosene oil on Pallavi burnt her. After getting the information he went
to the place of occurrence at about 4 .00 a.m. in the subsequent morning. After
going to the place of occurrence he did not find the accused persons, as the
deceased was already taken to Jorhat Medical College for treatment, where she
died and after her death her dead body was taken back to the home of the
accused. He deposed that when her body was brought back to house, he again
went to see her (deceased) and then he saw the dead body which was
completely burnt. When he went to see the dead body of Pallavi he heard from
the village people that the accused persons bunt the victim in a planned way. On
the date of the incident the children of the accused persons were not present at
home and they were kept in the house of some other person. When he again
went to the place of occurrence he asked the accused person how the incident
occurred. They told him that the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her burnt
herself inside the room. But he did not find any burnt spot inside the room. All
the rooms of the accused are thatched room but not a single burnt mark was
there inside the room. He deposed that the deceased Pallavi told him that after
about 6 months of marriage, the accused Ranjan Pegu started beating her and
did torture on her mentally and physically. He also used to demand dowry from
her. His brother i.e. father of deceased Pallavi tried to meet the demand of
dowry of the accused by selling land and cow and paid Rs.50,000.00 in cash but
could not fulfill the total demand of dowry.
In his cross examination he deposed that deceased Pallavi married the
accused Ranjan Pegu against their will. But later on, as she got already married
they accepted their marriage. He deposed that before the incident he went to the
house of the deceased for about 2/3 times. After the incident he did not meet
9
Dibya Kuli personally. On the next day of the incident at about 3 a.m. Dibya Kuli
informed him about the incident, over phone. He denied the fact that Dibya did
not inform him anything about the incident. He denied that he has not stated
before the police that Dibya Kuli informed him over phone about the incident or
that Pallavi, about 6 months prior to the incident told him that accused Ranjan
Pegu demanded dowry from her and due to the said reason he tortured her
mentally and physically. He denied to have not stated before police that the
father of the deceased gave fifty thousand rupees to the accused to meet his
demand of dowry. On the subsequent day of the incident he and other village
people went to the place of occurrence. He denied the fact that none of the
village people told him that the accused persons burnt Pallavi. He admitted that
he cannot say the name of the person who told him that the accused killed the
deceased in a planned way. He deposed that he does not know who took the
deceased to the hospital for treatment. He denied that the deceased committed
suicide and accused persons did not burn her.
14] P.W.6 Smt. Momota Pegu, deposed that she knows the accused persons.
Deceased was her younger sister. Her sister was married with Ranjan Pegu,
about two years back. On 04.05.12, she went to her mother’s place. On
05.05.12, when she was in her mother’s house and while she was sleeping, at
about 09.00 p.m. she suddenly heard hue and cry of her parents and hearing
such hue and cry she woke up and she came to know from her parents that her
sister got burnt and after coming to know about the said incident on the same
day along with her parents and elder brother she went to the house of her sister
Pallavi and saw her lying in her compound in a totally burnt condition, when she
asked her how the said incident happened than she told them that accused
Ranjan along with his wife Jogayama Pegu tied her and by pouring kerosene oil
set her on fire. She deposed that after marriage of her sister with accused she
did not meet her for once. She cannot say how was the relation between her
sister and the accused Ranjan.
In her cross examination she deposed that her matrimonial home is about
3 km away from her parental home. As her sister married the accused Ranjan
Pegu against their wish they were not in talking terms with her and they did not
go to the house of the accused. She deposed that she cannot say whether her
parents had gone to her house. She denied that she was not there at her
10
mother’s place during the time of incident. She denied that she has not stated
before the police that she along with her parents and elder brother after getting
the information of the incident went to the place of occurrence or after going to
the place of occurrence her sister told her that the accused persons set her on
fire. She denied the fact that her sister committed suicide and the accused
persons did not set her on fire.
15] P.W.7 Sri Hem Chandra Paying deposed that deceased Pallavi was his
sister in law and her elder sister is his wife, Pallavi was the second wife of
accused Ranjan Pegu. On 5.5.12 at about 9 p.m. he got information from Dibya
Kuli over phone that the accused Ranjan Pegu burnt Pallavi, after getting the
information on the same day he along with his wife went to the house of his
father in law by crossing the house of the accused, and while he was crossing
the house of the accused he saw lot many people to gather at the house of the
accused. He deposed that after the incident he has not gone to the house of the
accused person. Deceased Pallavi after her marriage always used to inform his
wife Rompi Payeng that accused Ranjan Pegu beats her and demands money
from her. He deposed that when the dead body of deceased was bought from
hospital to the house of the accused he saw her dead body on the way. When
her dead body was brought back from hospital by crossing the house of his
father in law, there he stopped the vehicle and saw the dead body and found
that her whole body was burnt and he noticed sign of rope being tied on both
the hands. He heard from police that after the incident when police went to the
house of Ranjan Pegu he was found absconding.
In his cross examination he deposed that after getting the information of
the incident when he went to the house of his father in law, he found Dibya Kuli
brother of Pallavi but he did not find her in laws there. He deposed that Dibya
Kuli has not seen the incident. He does now know wherefrom Dibya Kuli got the
information that accused burnt deceased Pallavi and he also does not know who
took deceased Pallavi to the hospital for treatment. He denied the fact that he
has not stated before the police that he has got the information of incident from
Dibya Kuli or that after getting the information he went to the house of her
father in law or on the way he saw some people gathered in the house of the
accused or deceased used to call his wife and informed her that accused beats
11
her and demands money from her or that he noticed sign of rope being tied on
the hands of the deceased.
16] P.W.8 Smt. Rompi Kuli Payeng deposed that she knows both the accused
persons. Deceased Pallavi was her younger sister. The incident took place on
05.05.12 and on that day at about 9 p.m. she got information from Dibya kuli
over phone that Pallavi caught fire and called them immediately. They
immediately went to her parental home and found Dibya Kuli, her parents and
her sister Momota Kuli over there. After a while her parents went to the house of
the accused and after returning from there her mother told her that she saw
Pallavi in a totally bunt condition and Pallavi told her that she will not live
anymore and that she was being killed by the accused (Muk Marile,Moi Nebasim).
She deposed that after her marriage Pallavi frequently used to call her and
informed her that accused Ranjan tortures her and demands money from her.
When she was brought back from hospital she saw her dead body on the way.
When her dead body was brought back from hospital by crossing the house of
her parental home there she saw the dead body and found that her whole body
was burnt and she noticed sign of rope being tied on her both hands.
In her cross examination she deposed that she does not know who took
her sister Pallavi to the hospital. After getting the information of the incident
when she went to the house of her parents, her husband also accompanied her
and after they reached to her parental home, her parents went to the house of
accused persons. She admitted that she has not stated before police that after
reaching home of her parents her parents went to the home of accused or that
her parent went to the house of the accused or after returning from there her
mother told her that Pallavi told her that she will not live any more or she is
being killed or that Pallavi used to call her frequently and informed her that
accused tortured her and demanded money.
17] P.W.9 Sri Morom Jyoti Pegu deposed that he knows both the accused
persons. Deceased Pallavi was his sister in law and her elder sister is his wife.
On 5.5.12 at about 9 p.m. he got information from Dibya Kuli over phone that
the accused Ranjan Pegu burnt his wife Pallavi by pouring kerosene oil on her.
After getting the information on the subsequent day he went to the house of
Dibya Kuli. From there he along with Dibya Kuli went to the police station and
12
lodged an ejahar, which was written by him. He proved his signature over the
FIR as Exbt.1(2). He deposed that when the dead body of Pallavi was brought
back from hospital by crossing the house of her father in law, he saw the dead
body on the way and found that her whole body was burnt and he noticed sign
of rope being tied on both the hands. He deposed that the relation between the
accused Ranjan Pegu and Pallavi was not at all good. Ranjan Pegu used to
torture the deceased Pallavi. He further deposed that one day in the month of
January he saw when he was crossing the home of Pallavi, that Ranjan was
beating Pallavi and Jogamaya was also pulling her hair and beating her. After
seeing that incident he went to the home of Ranjan and brought Pallavi to her
parental home. But then after two days he came to know that Ranjan Pegu again
brought back Pallavi to his home. He deposed that Pallavi used to call his wife
and told her that Ranjan Pegu tortured her and beats her and demanded money.
In his cross examination he deposed that Dibya Kuli has not informed him
that he has seen the incident. He has written the ejahar as per the instructions of
Dibya Kuli. He does not know wherefrom Dibya Kuli got the information. He
deposed that he informed the police about the incident which he saw in the
month of January in the house the accused. He denied to have not stated before
the police to have seen the said incident.
18] P.W.10 Smt. Debanti Kuli, deposed that she knows both the accused
persons. Deceased Pallavi was her niece. On the date of the incident i.e. on
05.05.12 she was in the house of her sister at Sivasagar. On the subsequent day
of the incident her husband Debojit Kuli, informed her over phone that accused
persons killed Pallavi by pouring kerosene oil on her. After getting the
information she came back from Sivasagar and came to know that Pallavi was
taken to hospital and she also went to hospital to see her. When she saw Pallavi
she was not in a condition to speak. She deposed that when she asked her if she
herself committed suicide then she nodded her head in negative but when she
asked her whether the accused persons have burnt her then she nodded her
head in positive .On the same day, she expired in the hospital. She deposed after
her marriage, Pallavi informed her over phone about 6/7 times that both the
accused persons torture her and demands money from her and threatened her
that if money is not given to them then they will kill her. On the day of incident
i.e. 05.05.12 Pallavi called her at Sivasagar and when she was talking with her
13
regarding some domestic matter suddenly she heard her screaming and after
hearing such scream her phone got switched off then she tried to contact her but
she found her phone switched off. After the incident brother of the deceased
lodged the FIR. Thereafter, police came and interrogated her and sent her to
Garmur to produce before the Magistrate for recording her statement. She
marked her statement before the magistrate as Ext 2 and Exbt.2 (1) as her
signature.
In her cross examination she deposed that on the subsequent day of the
incident i.e. on 06.05.12, she went to the hospital and saw deceased Pallavi.
When she went to the hospital she saw accused Ranjan Pegu along with some
other village people near Pallavi whom she does not know. She reiterated that at
that time Pallavi was not in a state to speak. She denied that she has not gone to
the hospital to see Pallavi or she did not talk with her. She denied that she has
not stated before police that she went to the hospital to see Pallavi. She denied
that she has not stated before the Magistrate that after the marriage Pallavi
called her up about 6/7 times and informed her that the accused persons
tortures her and demands money from her.
19] P.W.11 Hasta (Harta) Singh Kuli, deposed that he knows both the
accused persons. Deceased Pallavi was the daughter of his nephew (his
granddaughter). He deposed that on the day of the incident i.e. on 05.05.12, he
came to know from some village people that some incident took place in their
village. After coming to know about the incident he came to the place of
occurrence. There he saw Pallavi. At that time her eyes were open and she was
alive.
At this stage prosecution prayed to declare the witness hostile. In his
cross examination by the prosecution he admitted that he has stated before the
police that when he arrived at the place of occurrence Pallavi opened her eyes
and told him saying Kaka(grandfather) both the accused persons i.e. Ranjan
Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu murdered her in a planned away by pouring kerosene
oil on her. Thereafter, police brought him before the Magistrate and he gave his
statement before the Magistrate and put his left thumb impression.
In his cross examination by the defence he deposed that he saw Pallavi at
Garmur hospital. He does not know who brought deceased to the hospital. He
14
deposed that he could not speak with Pallavi at the hospital. He does not know
where Pallavi expired. He deposed that he does not remember what he stated
before the police during investigation.
20] P.W 12. Sri Archana Pegu, deposed that she knows both the accused
person. Deceased Pallavi was her sister. She used to stay with her deceased
sister Pallavi under one roof in separate room. On the date of the incident at
about 9.00 am she heard Ranjan Pegu shouting caught fire caught fire (Jui lagile)
After hearing his hulla, she came out and saw fire in the guest room of accused
Ranjan Pegu, and then she saw her sister Pallavi to come out from the guest
room having fire over her whole body. Her sister’s (Pallavi) whole body was
burning with fire. She deposed that she saw the accused Ranjan Pegu to put off
the fire from the body of Pallavi due to which he sustained burn injury in his
hand. Thereafter, her sister was taken to Jorhat Medical College, police also
arrived to the place of occurrence, after the incident and seized from Jogamaya
Pegu, one jarkin containing kerosene oil, one burnt petticoat, burnt mekhela,
burnt chadar, one kerosene lamp in her presence. She proved the seizure list as
Ext 3 and Exbt.3(1) as her signature. She deposed that she does not know how
Pallavi got burnt or caught fire.
In her cross examination she deposed that she is married to the brother
of Ranjan Pegu. Their house is a chang ghar (house on a plank). There is a big
room in the said house, alongwith that, two rooms are attached, out of that, in
one room Pallavi used to stay and in another Jogamaya stays. The guest room is
situated near to her room. Ranjan Pegu was shouting from the cow shed situated
below the chang ghar. After hearing the shout she thought that their house got
burnt, therefore she ran out from her room and then she saw Pallavi coming out
with fire on her body. After hearing her hue and cry accused Jogamaya also
came out from her room. When they saw Pallavi in such condition they all i.e.
Ranjan Pagu, Jogamaya and she took Pallavi under the tube well and poured
water on her. Ranjan Pegu pumped the tube well to pour water on Pallavi. After
putting off the fire she and Jogamaya took Pallavi inside her room and changed
her clothes. Thereafter, on being asked Pallavi told her that she burnt on her
own. When she asked that why she burnt herself then she remained silent and
did not reply. Thereafter, Ranjan Pegu by calling a vehicle took Pallavi to Garmur
Civil hospital. Subsequently, Pallavi was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital by Ranjan
15
Pegu and her husband Bijoy as she was not kept in Garmur hospital. After the
death of Pallavi her husband and Ranjan Pegu brought her back to home and
performed her last rites. She deposed that the relation between Ranjan Pegu and
Pallavi was good. She has not seen any quarrel between both of them ever.
Jogamaya also treated Pallavi as her sister and relation between both of them
was also good. She deposed that her parents were not very pleased with the
relation between her sister Pallavi and Ranjan Pegu, as Pallavi married Ranjan
against their wish. She deposed that her parent never visited the house of Pallavi
and also did not allow her to come to their home. She deposed that Pallavi used
to feel sad sometimes as she was not allowed to visit her parental home. After
the incident none of the family members of parental home of Pallavi visited the
house of Pallavi. Even after the death of Pallavi none came from her parental
home to see her.
21] P.W.13 Bijoy Pegu, deposed that accused Ranjan Pegu is his elder brother
and accused Jogayama Pegu is his sister in law. Deceased Pallavi was the second
wife of accused Ranjan Pegu and was his sister in law. He deposed that he lives
with his brother Ranjan Pegu in a same house, under the same roof and have
got separate kitchen. On 05.05.12 i.e. the day of incident, he was not at home.
On that day he went to the home of his in laws. On the said day at about 8 .00
p.m. his brother Ranjan Pegu informed over phone that some incident took place
at their home. After coming to know about the same, he immediately rushed to
his home and found Pallavi in a burnt condition. On seeing her in such a
condition he asked her how she got burnt. Then Pallavi told him that she does
not know what she has done and why she has done. She told him that she has
committed mistake. She went on saying what I have done (Moi ki korilu). After
seeing her, he immediately went to call doctor and informed the parents of
Pallavi about the incident. The doctor came to their home and stated that he
cannot treat her at home and advised to take Pallavi to hospital. Then they
shifted Pallavi to Garmur PHC but from there she was referred to Jorhat Medical
College and Hospital. On the subsequent morning she was taken to Jorhat
Medical College and Hospital. But on the same day she could not undergo any
treatment and died at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital. After the death of
Pallavi police and Magistrate came to Jorhat Medical College and they did inquest
16
on the dead body of deceased Pallavi in his presence. He proved the inquest
report as Ext 4 and Exbt.4 (1) as his signature.
In his cross examination he deposed that after coming to know about the
incident he informed the parents of Pallavi. But after getting the information of
the incident none of the family members from the house of Pallavi came to their
home. While taking Pallavi to hospital she was accompanied by him, his brother
Ranjan Pegu and two ASHA members and two other ladies of their village. Before
the marriage of Pallavi with Ranjan, Pallavi fled from her parental home to their
home twice to stay with Ranjan. But the family members of Pallavi both the
times took her back to their home. But again she came back to their home.
When she again came to their home then Ranjan Pegu accepted her as his wife
and they also accepted her as their sister in law (Nabou). He deposed that till
two and half years of their marriage everything went well till the date of the
incident amongst their brother Ranjan Pegu and Pallavi. When Pallavi stayed at
their home as the wife of accused Ranjan she had no relation with the members
of her parental home. Pallavi after marriage with Ranjan was never allowed to
enter her parental home and none of her members from parental home ever
visited their home to see Pallavi. The relationship between accused Jogamaya
and Pallavi was good and the relationship between accused Ranjan and Pallavi
was also good. Pallavi had no children and accused Jogayama has one son and
one daughter. Pallavi was suffering from sadness as she was not allowed to visit
her parental home and also for the reason for not able to give birth to any child.
He deposed that his wife is not the own sister of Pallavi. Pallavi used to call his
wife as baideo since she was the wife of his elder brother. There was no blood
relation between Pallavi and his wife. He deposed that when he asked the reason
for her burning Pallavi did not bring any allegation against the accused persons.
She only told him what she has done(Moi ki korilu).
22] P.W.14 Dr. Nitu Kumar Gogoi, deposed that on 06.05.12, he was working
as Demonstrator at Jorhat Medical College,Jorhat. On that day dead body of one
Pallavi Pegu wife of Ranjan Pegu was brought to the hospital in connection with
Jengraimukh P.S.Case No.17/12 under section 304 B IPC .The dead body was
escorted by UBC 1334 Raju Nath and Bijoy Pegu on being identified by IBC 1334
Raju Nath and Ranjan Pegu, he performed the post mortem examination on the
said dead body on the same day at 12.45 p.m. and found the following.
17
A female dead body of average built covered with surgical bandage over the
whole body. Scalp hair singed at places. Rigor mortis started to develop in upper
limbs. Burnt injuries are present over the whole body except portion of scale and
upper limbs. The line of redness are present between healthy and burnt areas.
The base of the burnt injuries are redenned with oozing of serous substance at
places. The burnt injuries are epidermal to demo epidermal in depth and cover
about 90% of total body surface area.
No ligature mark around the neck.
On dissection neck tissues are found healthy.
As per his opinion the death was caused due to shock as a result of ante
moretem flame burn injury covering about 90% of total body surface area. Time
since death 2 to 4 hours approximately. He proved his report as Ext 5 and
Exbt.5(1) as his signature.
In his cross examination he deposed that from the post mortem report, it
appears that the deceased prior to her death underwent treatment. The kind of
treatment done to the deceased could be told by the doctor who treated the
deceased prior to her death. The deceased was having 90% burnt injury and in
such condition a person may be conscious or unconscious and may be able to
speak or not able to speak. He deposed that the doctor who treated the
deceased will able to say the exact physical condition of the deceased prior to
her death.
23] P.W.15 S.I. Sorbeswar Chetia, deposed that on 06.05.12, he was working
as I/C Nayabazar out post under Jengraimukh police station, on the said day he
received one FIR from Dibya Kuli and after receiving the same he entered it vide
G.D entry No.78 dated-06.05.12 and then forwarded the same to Jengraimukh
police station for registering a case. Thereafter, he took up the investigation of
the case. He proved Ext 1(2) as her signature with endorsement. After receipt of
the FIR, Officer in charge of Jengraimukh police station registered a case vide
Jengraimukh police station case No 17/12 under section 304B. IPC He proved
Ext. 1(3) as the signature of S. I. Pranab Das O/C Jengraimukh police station.
After taking up the investigation of the instant case, he went to the place of
occurrence on the same day i.e. 06.05.12 and prepared a sketch map of the
18
same, which he proved as Ext.6 and Ext.6 (1) as his signature. During the
investigation, he recorded the statement of Sunil Pegu, Jogamaya Pegu and
Archana Pegu at the place of occurrence, he also recorded the statement Dibya
Kuli, Bhola Nath Kuli, Rohini Kuli, Hekim Kuli, Debojit Kuli, Momota Pegu,
Moromjyoti Pegu, Rompi Payeng and Hemchandra Payeng. He deposed that
when he visited the place of occurrence he did not find the deceased as she was
already taken to Jorhat Medical College and Hospital. On his visit to the place of
occurrence, he seized one five liters kerosene oil gallon containing three liters of
kerosene oil, one burnt piece of mekhela, one burnt piece of petticoat and one
burnt piece of white chadar and one metal lamp (saki) from the place of
occurrence in presence of wetness. He proved the seizure list as Ext 3 and
Exbt.3 (2) as his signature and Material Exbt.1 as the kerosene gallon, Material
Exbt.2 as the burnt piece of mekhela, petticoat and chadar and Material Exbt.3
as the lamp (saki). After seizing the aforesaid articles he sent it for examination
to forensic laboratory. During the investigation, he brought Smt. Debanti Kuli and
Hatra Singh Kuli before the Magistrate to record their statement under section
164 Cr.P.C. On 08.05.12, he arrested the accused persons Ranjan Pegu. During
the investigation he found incriminating materials against Jogamaya Pegu wife of
the accused therefore he arrested her on 29.06.12. After completion of the
investigation and after finding sufficient materials against both the aforesaid
accused persons under section 304 (B) IPC he submitted charge sheet against
them under the aforesaid section of law. He proved the charge sheet as Ext 7
and Ext.7 (1) as his signature. He confirmed that witness Harta Singh Kuli stated
before him that when he arrived at the place of occurrence Pallavi opened her
eyes and told her saying Kaka (grandfather) both the accused persons i.e.
Ranjan Pegu and Jogayama Pegu murdered her in a planned way by pouring
kerosene oil on her. Thereafter, he was brought before the Magistrate to give her
statement before the Magistrate wherein he put his thumb impression.
In his cross examination he stated that the incident took place on
05.06.12 at about 9 p.m. The place of occurrence is about six kilometer away
from the Nayabazar police out post, he visited the place of occurrence on
06.05.12 at 01.15 p.m. When he visited the place of occurrence on the aforesaid
date he did not find the accused Ranjan Pegu and deceased Pallavi Pegu at the
place of occurrence. During the investigation he came to know that accused
19
Ranjan Pegu is in Jorhat Medical College along with the deceased Pallavi Pegu.
During the investigation, he came to know that deceased Pallavi was taken to
Garmur civil hospital and from there taken to Jorhat Medical College he did not
record the statement of Pallavi at Jorhat Medical College as he came to know
that till then deceased Pallavi already died at Jorhat Medical College. He
admitted that during the investigation he did not record the statement of any of
the doctors of Garmur Civil Hospital or Jorhat Medical College. After coming to
know about the fact that deceased is taken to Jorhat Medical College, he made
contact with the police personnel who was in charge of Jorhat Medical College
outpost and asked him to record the statement of Pallavi but from the said police
personnel he came to know that during then Pallavi was not in a position to
speak anything. He deposed that during investigation he has not collected any
material to know the fact that during the treatment at Garmur Hospital and
Jorhat Medical College what exact cause of sustaining injury by the deceased
was found by the doctors during the treatment. He deposed that on 08.05.12 at
about 1.10 p.m. he received information that the dead body of Pallavi was
brought to Sikari Ghat (Brahmaputra) and after receiving the same he
immediately went there and did not find the accused Ranjan Pegu over there, he
deposed that he has not mentioned in the case diary the names of the persons
who brought the dead body of deceased to Sikari Ghat from Jorhat Medical
College. He denied the fact that the accused Ranjan Pegu and his brother Bijoy
Pegu brought the dead body of Pallavi from Jorhat Medical College to Sikari ghat.
The articles which he seized from the place of occurrence were shown to him by
Archana Pegu, Jogayama Pegu and Sunil, he found burnt piece of mekhela and
bunt piece of petticoat near the tube well situated in the house of the accused
persons which was shown to him by the accused Jogamaya Pegu. Other seized
articles were also shown by accused Jogamaya . He denied the fact that he has
not record the statement of the persons staying near the place of occurrence. He
confirmed that Dibya Kuli (P.W.1) did not state before him that after getting the
information of the incident he went to the house of the accused person. P.W.1
also did not state before him that he went to Kamalabari ghat. He confirmed that
Bholanath Kuli (P.W.2) did not state before him that after coming to know about
the incident he went to the house of the accused persons Bholanath Kuli and also
did not state before him that as he could not meet the demand of the accused
persons therefore they bunt his daughter Pallavi Pegu. He confirmed that Rohini
20
Kuli(P.W.3) did not state before him that accused demanded Rupees one lakh
from her daughter and she also did not tell before him that she gave Rupees fifty
thousand to the accused to meet his demand and further confirmed that Debojit
Kuli (P.W.5) did not state before him that after about six months of marriage of
Pallavi with the accused Ranjan Pegu the accused started beating her and
torturing her mentally and physically and also did not state before him that his
father to meet the demand of the accused sold the land and cows and paid
Rs.50,000.00 to the accused. Momota Kuli Pegu(P.W.6) did not state before him
that after getting the information of the incident she went to the house of the
accused persons and also did not state before him that deceased Pallavi told her
that accused Ranjan Pegu burnt her by pouring kerosene oil. Hemchandra
Payeng (P.W.7) did not state before him that after getting the information he
went to the house of his father in law (father of Pallavi) and also did not state
before him that his wife told him that accused Ranjan Pegu calls her and
demands dowry from her. Rompi Kuli(P.W.8) did not state before him that after
getting the information of the incident when she went to her home, she did not
find her father and came to know that her father has gone to the house of Pallavi
or that her father told her after coming from the house of Pallavi that Pallavi will
not live for any longer or that deceased Pallavi told her that accused Ranjan Pegu
demands dowry from her. Moromjyoti Pegu (P.W.9) did not state before him that
she saw the accused Ranjan Pegu to beat Pallavi. Debanti Kuli (P.W.10) did not
state before him that after coming to know about the incident she went to the
hospital to see Pallavi. He deposed that he does not remember whether the
accused Ranjan Pegu was having any burnt injury on his hand during the time of
his arrest .He denied the fact that he has not investigated the case properly. He
denied that he has not recorded the statement of witness Harta Singh Kuli
(P.W.11).
24] P.W.16. Mr. Utpal Rajkhowa deposed that on 22.05.12, while he was
working as S.D.J.M. Majuli, Sri Horta Singh Kuli was brought before him for
recording his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. He was produced by UBC 657
Meghnad Kutum of Jengraimukh police station. He recorded his statement in
Assamese language as per his version. Since, he was not able to put his
signature so his thumb impression was taken before him. He proved the
statement of Horta Singh Kuli recorded by him under section 164 Cr.P.C as Ext 8
21
and Exbt.8(1) as his signature and Exbt.8(2) as the signature of Meghnad Kutum
who produced the aforesaid witness before him.
On the same day he recorded the statement of witness Debanti Kuli
under section 164 Cr.P.C. She was brought and identified by Arati Kaman. He
proved the statement of Debanti Kuli as Ext 2 and Exbt.2(2) and 2(3) as his
signatures and Exbt.2(1) and Exbt.2(4) as the signatures of Debanti Kuli.
In his cross examination he deposed that both the witnesses were
produced before him by the investigating officer of the instant case. While
recording statement of the witnesses the investigating officer was outside the
court. He admitted that in the statement of Horta Singh Kuli the name of the
person who took the thumb impression of Horta Singh Kuli is not mentioned. He
deposed that thumb impression of Horta Singh Kuli was taken by the then bench
assistant of the said court. He denied the fact that the thumb impression of Horta
Singh Kuli was not taken before him by the Bench Assistant. He admitted that in
his order dated 22.05.12 in G.R.case No. 61/12 (corresponding to the instant
Sessions Case) it is mentioned that statement of witness Debanti Kuli and Debojit
Kuli is recorded but the fact of recording the statement of Horta Singh Kuli is not
mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 22.05.12. He denied the fact that
statement of Horta Singh Kuli was not recorded by him on 22.05.12. He denied
the fact that Horta Singh Kuli did not give any statement before him under
section 164 Cr.P.C. He denied the fact that thumb impression over the statement
of Horta Singh Kuli is not given by him.
25] P.W.17 Mr. Kumud Chandra Sharma, deposed that on 12.06.12, he was
working as Deputy Director Chemistry Department Forensic Laboratory,
Kahilipara,Guwahati,Assam, he joined in Forensic Laboratory in the year 1982
and since then he is working as Forensic Laboratory. On the aforesaid date he
received a packed and sealed parcel in connection with Jengraimukh P.S.Case
No.17/12 under section 304((B).The parcel consisted of four exhibits with
wooden box with cloth which was sealed with impression of seal corresponding
with the seal impression forwarded.
Description of the articles.
1) One piece of burnt petticoat marked by him as Ext.C-32/12(a)
22
2) One piece of burnt Mekhela, marked by him as Ext.C-32/12(b)
3) One piece of burnt white chadar, marked by him as Exbt.C-32/12(c)
4) One piece of metallic chaki, marked by him as Ext.C-32/12(d)
After examination he found that the Ext.C-32/12(a) to Ext.C-32/12(d) gave
positive tests for kerosene residues.
He proved his report as Exbt.9 and Ext.9 (1) as his signature. The report was
forwarded by Director in-charge Forensic Laboratory vide letter No.DFS-
479/12/1025/C-32/12, dated 31.07.2012. He proved the forwarding report as
Ext10 and Ext.10(1) and Ext.10(2) as the signatures of the Director, in-charge,
Forensic Laboratory, Mr. Hemen Bora which he knows.
Defence declined to cross examine him.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:
26] After the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it appears that except
P.W.12 and P.W.13 all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case.
Though it appears that P.W.11 was declared hostile by the prosecution but even
then it appears that the said witness has supported the prosecution case vitally.
The evidence on record reveals that the prosecution, to bring home the charge
against the accused persons, failed to adduce any direct evidence in support of
its case and is mainly relying on oral dying declaration of the deceased. It
appears that the prosecution witnesses mainly brought the fact that after coming
to know about the incident when they went to the house of the accused persons
they found the deceased in a totally burnt condition and in such condition she
told to them that the accused persons burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her.
It is pertinent to mention that the perusal of medical evidence i.e. the evidence
of doctor (P.W 14) and the post mortem examination report (Ext 5) on record
also appears to reveal that the deceased in fact died due to 90/% burn injuries.
It appears that doctor (P.W14) categorically opined that the death of the
deceased was caused due to shock as a result of ante mortem flame burn injury
covering about 90% of total body surface area. The evidence of scientific officer
(P.W 17) further appears to substantiate the fact that the flame which caused
the burn injuries to the deceased was the result of lighting kerosene oil.
23
27] It appears that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.10, brought the
fact of oral dying declaration being made by the deceased to them. The perusal
of evidence of P.W.1 Sri Dibya Kuli, reveals that after getting the information of
the incident, he immediately rushed to the house of the accused parsons but
there he came to know that his sister Pallavi is taken to Jorhat Civil hospital and
after knowing the same when he started for Jorhat Hospital, on the way he
found his sister Pallavi at Kamalabari ghat in a totally burnt condition, during
then she was able to speak and when he enquired that what happened to her,
on that she replied, that the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu
poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her. The evidence of P.W.2 Sri Bholanath
Kuli, reveals that after getting the information of the incident he hurriedly rushed
to the house of the accused persons and there he found his daughter Pallavi in a
totally burnt condition. Her body was almost burnt except her face. He found
both the accused persons at their house. He deposed that his daughter was able
to speak at that time. After asking his daughter, about her condition, she told
him that as he did not fulfill the demand of accused Ranjan, they burnt her. It
appears that P.W.3 Smt. Rohini Kuli, deposed that after getting the information
of the incident she along with her husband went to her daughter’s place and
when they reached there she saw her daughter in a totally burnt condition but
her face was not totally burnt. On being asked, she told her that the accused
Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu by pouring kerosene on her burnt her. P.W 6,
Momota Pegu, deposed that after coming to know about the incident on the
same day she along with her parents and elder brother went to the house of her
sister Pallavi and saw her lying in her compound in a totally burnt condition,
when she asked her how the said incident happened than she told them that
accused Ranjan along with his wife Jogayama Pegu tied her and by pouring
kerosene oil set her on fire. P.W.10 Smt. Debanti Kuli, deposed that after getting
the information of the incident on the subsequent day of the incident, she went
to hospital to see Pallavi and during then she was not in a condition to speak but
when she asked her if she herself committed suicide then she nodded her head
in negative but when she asked her whether the accused persons have burnt her
then she nodded her head in positive.
28] The perusal of evidence of the aforesaid witnesses reveals that there is
absolute corroboration among all the aforesaid witnesses. It appears that
24
defence though gave suggestion to the aforesaid witnesses that they have not
stated the fact of the aforesaid dying declaration being made by the deceased to
them before the investigating officer but it appears that the said fact or the said
contradiction has not been confirmed by the investigating officer (P.W 15). It
appears that though the investigating officer (P.W15) confirmed the fact that
P.W6 has not stated to him that the deceased made any sort of dying declaration
before her but he has nowhere confirmed that other aforesaid P.Ws i.e. P.W 1,
P.W 2 and P.W3, have also not stated that the deceased made the aforesaid
dying declaration before them. It is further pertinent to mention that the P.W 10
also very categorically deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 05.05.12 Pallavi
called her at Sivasagar and when she was talking with her regarding some
domestic matter suddenly she heard her screaming and after hearing such
scream her phone got switched off then she tried to contact her but she found
her phone switched off, it appears that defence nowhere challenged the said fact
as brought by P.W 10, in her evidence, which further appears to lend due
credence to the prosecution case.
29] It is pertinent to mention that though P.W 11 has been declared hostile by
the prosecution but his evidence also reveals that he also duly corroborated the
aforesaid witnesses. It appears that P.W 11, while getting cross examined by the
prosecution duly admitted that he has stated before the police that when he
arrived at the place of occurrence Pallavi (deceased) opened her eyes and told
him saying Kaka (grandfather) both the accused persons i.e. Ranjan Pegu and
Jogamaya Pegu murdered her in a planned away by pouring kerosene oil on her
and the said fact appears to have been duly confirmed by the investigating
officer (P.W15).
30] It is pertinent to mention that the main contention of the defence is that
the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is not at all believable as after the
incident the deceased was not in a state to speak anything and if in fact she was
in a state to speak then the absence of any written dying declaration of deceased
on the record cast doubt on the prosecution case. In this context, it is pertinent
to mention that the evidence of P.W 12 (sister in law of the accused persons)
and P.W 13 (brother of the accused Ranjan Pegu), on whom the defence is
mainly relying, clearly reveals that after the incident the deceased was able to
speak. It appears that learned defence counsel submitted that the evidence of
25
the aforesaid witnesses i.e. P.W 12 and P.W 13 is believable as they were the
persons who saw the deceased immediately after incident at the place of
occurrence in a burning condition but the other aforesaid witnesses found the
deceased subsequently in a totally burnt condition therefore, the evidence of the
witnesses who brought the fact of oral dying declaration of the deceased being
made before them is totally unbelievable. It is worthwhile to mention here, that
P.W 13, categorically deposed that during the incident he was not at home and
was at his in laws’ home and after being informed about the incident he came to
his home and found Pallavi (deceased) in a burnt condition but his evidence
clearly reveals that he though found the deceased in a burnt condition but found
her in a state to speak which further appears to lend due credence to the
aforesaid witnesses, who brought the fact of dying declaration being made by
the deceased before them.
31] Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that the evidence of doctor
(P.W14) also nowhere suggest the deceased to be in a state to speak after the
incident to be unbelievable rather it clearly suggest the fact of oral dying
declaration being made by the deceased to be true. It appears that doctor
(P.W14) in his cross examination categorically deposed that the deceased was
having 90% burnt injury and in such condition a person may be conscious or
unconscious and may be able to speak or not able to speak.
32] It is further pertinent to mention that defence’s main plea is that the
deceased committed suicide as she was not having any child and as she was not
allowed to visit her parental home. In this context, it is pertinent to mention that
evidence on record clearly reveals that the accused Ranjan Pegu and the
deceased were married with each other for only one and half years and not being
able to give birth to any child within such period does not appear to be any
cogent or justified reason for which the deceased would take her life and the
another reason shown by the defence also does not appear to be very plausible
reason to take away one’s life. Moreover, the evidence on record suggests that
the deceased do had access to her parental home after her marriage.
33] It is further pertinent to mention that the accused Ranjan Pegu in his
statement under section 313 Cr.pc stated that during the incident he was at the
cow shed and after hearing the shout of the deceased he came to the place of
26
occurrence. But the perusal of the sketch map (Ext 6) reveals that the fact as
brought by the accused Ranjan Pegu in his aforesaid statement is not at all
believable and rather raises serious doubt on the said statement as averred by
the accused Ranjan Pegu. The perusal of sketch map (Ext 6) clearly reveals that
the cow shed is situated quite far away from the place where the incident took
place and if in fact the deceased had raised any shout then it should have been
heard by the accused Jogamaya Pegu and the P.W 12, Archana Pegu as the
sketch map clearly reveals that their rooms are situated quite near to the place
of occurrence, which appears to have been duly admitted by P.W12 in her cross
examination. It appears that P.W 12, in her cross examination categorically
admitted that the guest room, where the incident took place, is situated near to
her room but it appears that she or Jogamaya Pegu did not listen any shout of
the deceased but the accused Ranjan Pegu who was so far away from the place
of occurrence heard her shout. It appears that P.W 12, whose room is situated
quite near to the place of occurrence, categorically deposed that she came to the
place of occurrence after hearing the shout of the accused Ranjan Pegu and
when she came there she saw the accused Ranjan Pegu to put off fire from the
body of the deceased.
34] In view of the foregoing discussions, this court is of the opinion that the
prosecution established the guilt of the accused persons under section 302 IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and
Jogamaya Pegu are convicted under section 302 IPC.
SENTENCE HEARING
35] The accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu are present.
Heard them on sentencing, they pleaded to deal them with leniency stating that
they have got minor children, at home. Keeping in view the materials on record,
the accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu are sentenced to LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of RS. TEN THOUSAND, in default,
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for a period of SIX MONTHS.
36] Let the seized article be destroyed in due course of time as per law.
37] Furnish a copy of judgment free of cost to the accused persons.
38] Send a copy of this judgment to the learned District Magistrate, Jorhat.
27
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 11th day of July,
2016.
Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.
Dictated & corrected by me,
Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.
Typed by:
(Sri Dambaroodhar Bora), Stenographer
28
A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses from prosecution side:
P.W. 1 : Sri Dibya Kuli.
P.W. 2 : Sri Bholanath Kuli .
P.W. 3 : Smt. Rohini Kuli
P.W. 4 : Sri Hekim Kuli
P.W. 5 : Sri Debojit Kuli
P.W. 6 : Smti.Momata Pegu
P.W. 7 : Sri Hem Chandra Payeng
P.W. 8 : Smt.Rompi Kuli Payeng.
P.W. 9 : Sri Moromjyoti Pegu
P.W. 10: Smti.Debanti Kuli
P.W 11: Sri Hasta (Harta) Singh Kuli
P.W.12 : Smti.Archana Pegu
P.W.13 : Sri Bijoy Pegu
P.W.14: Dr. Nitu Kumar Gogoi
P.W.15: S.I.Sorbeswar Chetia
P.W.16: Sri Utpal Rajkhowa
P.W.17: Sri Kumud Chandra Sharma
List of witnesses from defence side :
Nil.
List of witnesses from the side of Court:
Nil.
List of documents from prosecution side:
Exbt. 1 : F.I.R.
Exbt. 2 : Statement of P.W.10 Debanti Kuli under section 164
Cr.P.C
Exbt. 3 : Seizure list
Exbt .4 : Inquest report.
Exbt .5 : Post Mortem Examination Report.
Exbt. 6 : Sketch map
Exbt. 7 : Charge sheet.
Exbt.8 : 164 Cr,P.C. Statement of P.W.11 Horta Singh Kuli
29
Exbt.9: Report of Scientific Officer
Exbt.10: Forwarding letter of Scientific Officer.
List of Material Exhibit from Prosecution Side:
Material Exbt. 1 –Kerosene Oil Gallon
Material Exbt.2 - Burnt pieces of mekhela,petticoat,chaddar
Material Exbt.3 - Lamp(saki)
List of Exhibits from defence side :
Nil.
List of Exhibits from the side of court :
Nil.
Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.
30
ORDER
11.07.16 The accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu
are present.
As fourteen days elapsed from the last date of hearing,
the learned counsels are heard on material points.
Keeping in view the entire evidence on record, this court
is of the opinion that the prosecution established the guilt
of the accused persons under section 302 IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons Ranjan
Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu are convicted under section 302
IPC.
Heard them on sentencing, they pleaded to deal them with
leniency stating that they have got minor children, at
home, Keeping in view the materials on record, the
accused persons Ranjan Pegu and Jogamaya Pegu are
sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of
RS. TEN THOUSAND, in default, RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT for a period of SIX MONTHS.
Let the seized article be destroyed in due course of time as
per law.
Furnish a copy of judgment free of cost to the accused
persons.
Send a copy of this judgment to the learned District
Magistrate, Jorhat.
Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.