Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Man Accused Of Murdering His Wife In 2010

The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the conviction of a man in a case under Section 302 and 498A of IPC and granted benefit of doubt to him. The accused was alleged to have murdered his wife. 

The division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Malasri Nandi passed the verdict in a case dating back to 2010. The appeal was filed by the convict in 2019.

“In the present case, the prosecution having failed to produce witnesses (doctors) and failing to exhibit documents to enable the appellant/accused to have all the opportunity available to him to prove his innocence, we are of the view that the advantage in the inherent weakness of the prosecution case should be to the advantage of the appellant,” said the court.

The mother (PW4) of the deceased had filed the FIR alleging that her daughter's husband used to torture her demanding dowry. It was further stated that on April 02, 2010 the appellant had demanded Rs.10,000/- in cash from the deceased and after she refused to give the same, he poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire at around 2 p.m, with an intention to kill her.

The charges were framed under Section 302 and 498(A) of IPC against the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial court came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having murdered his wife, by setting her on fire and also guilty of the offence under Section 498(A) IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Amicus Curiae, A. Dhar submitted that the evidence on record shows that there were discrepancies with regard to the date and time of the death of the deceased. He further submitted that the prosecution has deliberately not exhibited the Inquest Report as the same would have contradicted the contents of the FIR and would also have shown that the prosecution case against the appellant was a fabricated case.

It was further argued that though the deceased had been undergoing treatment in Dangtol Railway Hospital for around 30 hours, before being taken to Coochbehar for treatment, the prosecution had not produced any doctor of the Dangtol Railway Hospital as a witness, nor produced any medical certificate with regard to the treatment given to the deceased in Dangtol Railway Hospital, Bongaigaon. He submitted that the maker or author of the Inquest Report in Coochbehar was not made a prosecution witness and examined in the court.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), B. Bhuyan submitted that the date of incident has been wrongly stated by the PW2 and PW3 (son of the appellant and the deceased) in their testimonies, as the incident had taken place on April 02, 2010 which is a minor discrepancy and does not go to the root of the prosecution case.

She further submitted that Post Mortem Examination (PME) Report made by a Doctor in Coochbehar and the evidence of PW7, who had authored PME Report, having clearly stated that the deceased had died due to shock from the burn injuries sustained by the deceased, which was ante-mortem nature, the guilt of the appellant in causing the death of the deceased had been proved.

The court noted that the FIR which was filed on April 03, 2010 at 10:30 p.m. does not mention the fact that the deceased had died at 7:05 p.m., while the non-exhibited Inquest Report made in Coochbehar shows that the deceased had died 3 hours earlier, i.e. at 7:05 p.m.

“The above facts lead us to believe that there is fabrication of facts so as to deny the appellant an opportunity to prove his innocence,” the Court said.

“Though in a normal circumstances we would not have much problem in believing the testimony of PW-3, who is not only an eyewitness but the son of the appellant and the deceased, the discrepancy with regard to the date and time of death of the deceased, coupled with the fact that doctors who had in all probability attended upon the deceased in Dangtol Railway Hospital, Bongaigaon and M.J.N. Hospital, Coochbehar not having been made prosecution witnesses, besides documents not being exhibited by the prosecution, gives rise to a suspicion as to whether the prosecution hid material facts from the Trial Court and this Court,” it added.

It was further observed by the court that in the absence of any evidence by the Doctors who treated the deceased, the evidence of PW7 is not acceptable with regard to the shock being caused by the least severe superficial burns suffered by the deceased.

The court further noted that in the present case, no medical documents including the Inquest Report and referral letter were exhibited.

“Though for the ends of justice it might have been proper for this Court to remand the case back to enable the State to collect the medical documents and make doctors prosecution witnesses, besides exhibiting documents such as Inquest Report etc. due to the fact that the incident had occurred in the year 2010, we are of the view that it would not be proper to remand the matter after such a long period of time. There is every possibility of the doctors and the documents not being available any longer. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that it should be decided on the basis of the materials on record,” it added.

Case Title: Kalyan Barman v. The State of Assam & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 77

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment