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.