Ranjit Arjya vs State Of Assam And Anr

AM Bujor Barua, J

Heard Mr. Z Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. TK Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State of Assam.

The order dated 26.06.2019 accepts that the informant/respondent No.2 had died in the meantime and, therefore, no further service is required.

An ejahar dated 26.09.2010 was lodged by Santosh Kumar Arya before the Officer-in-Charge of Borghola Police Outpost, inter alia, stating that about two and half years ago, his daughter Saraswatibala Arya married the accused Ranjit Arya as per Hindu rites. Since the marriage the accused has been causing physical and mental torture to his daughter. Inspite of such torture, his daughter was managing her family and living with the accused. About a year and a half back, they were blessed with a male child. A few days before the ejahar was lodged, the daughter of the informant came back to her parental home when the accused had assaulted her and she was required to be given some medical treatment. On 25.09.2010, the accused came to the house of the informant, quarreled with him and forcibly took away his daughter to his house. On the next day i.e.,26.09.2010 at around 11A.M., the accused had killed her and had set fire on her by pouring kerosene.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the accused appellant was charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC.

PW-1 Jagadish Chandra Arya in his deposition stated that he had heard that the deceased, Saraswati was burnt by pouring kerosene on her. But he also stated that he had not heard that the relationship between the husband and wife was bad.

In cross, the witness stated that he had heard that the house where the deceased was lying was closed from inside.

PW-2 Bishnu Prasad Arya stated that after the marriage, the deceased and the accused started their conjugal life in the house of the accused and they have a son. The deceased died about two years back. He stated that at around 11.30/12 around noon time on the date of occurrence, he was at school. While at school, he saw that a number of villagers were going through the road in front of the school and from them he came to know that the deceased Saraswati had died. PW-2 also went to the house of the accused person and upon reaching he saw that Saraswati was lying dead on the floor of the house and also saw some burn injuries on her person.

PW-2 stated that the accused person was not present at home.

PW-3 Ram Dayal Mandal in his deposition stated that around 10.30 A.M., on 26.09.2010, he was out of his house and went to the market. At market, he came to know that the deceased Saraswati had died and having heard about the death, he went to the house of the accused person.

PW-4 Chidam Chandra Mandal was also at a place other than the place of occurrence when it took place and he proceeded there subsequently.

PW-5 Gouri Arya in her deposition stated that at around 11A.M., on the given day, upon hearing the cry of the son of Saraswati, she went to her house. There she found a room which was kept closed and flames of fire were seen from under the door. In another room, the boy was lying on a chair and was crying. As she had not seen Saraswati at home, she fetched some water from the kitchen and poured it on the door and took away the child to the house of the uncle of Saraswati. When she raised alarm, the villagers turned up. When the elder brother of Saraswati's husband Narayan Arya opened the door he found that Saraswati was in a burnt state.

In cross, the witness stated that she had seen the door closed from outside.

PW-7, Dr. Sushanta Bhattacharjee, who had conducted the post mortem examination found the following injuries on the deceased:

" A fresh female body aged about 22 years with 82% derma epidermal and deep type of burn with sing of strangulation on neck.

Strangulation mark on neck: Two oval shaped mark slightly crossed each other in front at the level of the thyroid cartilages and several ill deformed mark on the back of the neck. On dissection white compressed tissue with paothecal haemorrhage seen."

It is taken note of that the evidence of the Doctor conducting the post mortem examination had not been confronted by the defence in the trial.

PW-8, Tulsi Arya who is a neighbour stated that since their marriage there had been quarrel between the accused person and the deceased Saraswati. When Saraswati visited her house, she told her that her husband used to assault her and quarrel with her every day. She stated that Saraswati had a son, who is three years old. Having learnt about Saraswati's death, she went to the accused person's house and saw Saraswati lying dead on the floor. She also stated that a mosquito net was hung over and her hand was touching the wall. However, the mosquito net and the wall had not caught the fire.

PW-9, Sadhyabala Arya who is known to the accused, in her evidence, stated that when Saraswati had visited her parental house, she told her that the accused person's mother Alobala used to quarrel with her regularly. She also deposed that Saraswati had told her that Ranjit used to demand money from her and he also used to drink and that Santosh, the father of the deceased used to give money to Ranjit every now and then. She also stated that in the morning of the day of occurrence, Tulsi and she went to one Sarkar's house at around 10.30/11 AM and on the way back, she met Ranjit. Having heard about Saraswati's death, she went to the accused person's house and found Saraswati lying dead. The mosquito net was hung over her. Her face was found burnt. The rest of the body was found normal. She also saw finger marks on Saraswati's neck.

PW-12 Kulen Sarma had conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased.

PW-13 Darbesh Ali Ahmed, who was the Investigating Officer in his deposition stated that he was informed that the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to herself by pouring kerosene on her person and the information was given by Jagadish Arya of Kirtanapara. Accordingly he went to the place of occurrence and found that the deceased Saraswati Arya was lying dead inside the house and she suffered about 80% burn injuries. He also found a five litre plastic jerry can near the dead body. One leg was lying under the bed while the other was outside the bed. The jerry can was lying about 2 ft. away from the dead body. There was no sign of the deceased running around after she had been set on fire inside the room. The dead body was lying on the ground near the bed. The head was about half a foot away from the wall.

In cross examination, the witness stated that the prosecution witness Sadhyabala Arya had not stated before him that having learnt about Saraswati's death, she went to the house of the accused person and found that Saraswati was lying dead and that the mosquito net was hung over her and her face was found burnt. The rest of her person was found normal and that she saw finger prints on Saraswati's neck.

Based upon the evidence on record, Mr. Z Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant raises the contention that in the instant case, there was neither any eye witness nor the chain of event is complete so as to circumstantially hold the accused appellant guilty. The learned counsel also raises the issue that there is no evidence on record that he was present at the place of occurrence when the occurrence had taken place and, therefore, the act of causing death to the deceased cannot be attributed to him to the extent that there is no eye witness account of the occurrence and further we are in acceptance with the contention of Mr. Z Hussain.

As regards the circumstances which may point out that it is the accused appellant who had done the act of causing the death of the deceased the PW-9 in her unconfronted deposition had stated that the accused Ranjit had injured the deceased Saraswati by assaulting her and, therefore, her father Santosh got her treatment by bringing her back home. She also deposed that Saraswati had told her that Ranjit used to demand money from her and he used to drink and that she knows that the father of the deceased Santosh had given money to Ranjit every now and then and further that she also witnessed the father Santosh giving money to Ranjit.

PW-9 also stated that the day before her death, Sanjit the elder brother of the accused came and had taken the deceased Saraswati to her husband's house. Without going into the aspect whether the chain of event is complete to arrive at circumstantially that it is the accused appellant who had caused the death of the deceased, we take note of that the evidence on record from the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals that the death of the deceased had occurred in the house where her husband also normally resides and there is nothing contrary to show that the accused Ranjit did not reside in that house, where the death had occurred.

Trimukh  Maroti  Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 in paragraph 22 it has been held as under:

"22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime."

One of the circumstances laid down by the Supreme Court is that where the offence takes place in the dwelling house, where the husband also normally resides, it has consistently been held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that it is the accused husband who is responsible for commission of the offence. In the instant case, when we take a look at the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, we find that other than stating that he is innocent and he was at home on the day of the occurrence and went to Jatin Arya's house and that he cannot say why his wife died of hanging no other stand has been taken by the accused appellant. Neither the accused appellant had deposed himself as defence witness to make out any circumstance giving an explanation as to how the death had occurred to the deceased. Although Mahanta Arjya was examined as DW-1, the deposition of the said witness also does not in any manner offer any explanation as to how death had occurred to the deceased.

When we look into the injury report on the deceased, we find that the deceased had died due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation and there are definite marks on the neck in order to arrive at such conclusion.

Further the injury report provides that the burn is of dermo epidermal type and the tissue underneath is dry, hard and yellow and there is no sign of erythema at the junction of burns and the healthy tissue. The said medical report clearly indicates that the burn was caused on the deceased after the death which is post mortem and it cannot be a case where the death had occurred due to burn. The Doctor also gives his opinion in the same line that the death was caused due to asphyxia following strangulation which is ante-mortem and the 82% burn found on the deceased is post mortem in the origin.

In this respect, we have also taken note of the evidence of PW-1 where he stated that he had heard that deceased Saraswati was burnt by pouring kerosene on her person. We have also taken note of that a 5 litre capacity kerosene jerry can was seized. We take further note of the evidence of the Investigating Officer where he stated that one leg of the deceased was lying under the bed while the other was outside the bed, but there was no sign of the deceased running around after she had been set on fire inside the room. The said evidence of the Investigating Officer is also in conformity with the injury report of the Doctor that the deceased was set on fire subsequent to her death which is a result of asphyxia due to strangulation.

The conduct of the assailant shows that there was a grave criminal intention in his mind in committing the offence to the extent that initially the death was caused by strangulation and after the death was caused by strangulation the body was set on fire by pouring kerosene and thereafter the body was sought to be put up on a bed. The aspect that there was no explanation forthcoming from the appellant as regards how the death was caused to the deceased, where the death was caused in the dwelling house normally where the accused appellant resided brings his case within the purview of the provision of the Supreme Court in paragraph 22 of Trimukh Maroti (supra) wherein it was held that if the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided and the accused does not offer any explanation as to how the wife receives the injuries and or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that it is the accused husband who is responsible for the commission of the crime.

In the instant case, although contentions were raised for taking a plea that the accused husband was not present at the place of occurrence when it had taken place, but from the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is nothing to show that he was not present except for the evidence of some of the witnesses who came subsequent to the occurrence taking place and had said that when they came they had not found the accused present there. Such evidence also does not help the appellant as it does not establish that the accused was not present when the occurrence had actually taken place, although he may not have been present when subsequently the other witnesses came. At the same time in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant states that he was at home on the day when the occurrence had taken place.

In view of the above, by invoking the principle laid down in paragraph 22 of Trimukh Maroti (supra) as indicated above, we are of the view that in the absence of any explanation from the accused appellant, we are constrained to hold that it is the husband, who had intentionally caused the death of the deceased.

Further by looking into the circumstances and the manner under which the death was caused, we are of the view that no circumstances has been made out in the instant case to bring out the act of the accused appellant outside the purview of Section 300 of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused appellant made under Section 302 IPC is upheld and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment of six months is also upheld.

Appeal stands dismissed.

Send back the LCR.