Facts
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC by the Trial Court for allegedly pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire on 31.08.2017
Source reference: p. 2The victim was treated at AMCH Dibrugarh and died on 07.09.2017 after being discharged
Source reference: p. 4, 8The Prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-2 (the deceased's sister), who claimed to be an eyewitness
Source reference: p. 5the appellant challenged the conviction noting that PW-2 gave contradictory evidence, the FIR was delayed by 8 days, and an independent witness (PW-6) testified that the deceased told him the appellant was innocent
Source reference: p. 2, 4Issues
1. Whether the contradictory testimony of a relative witness (PW-2) and the uncontroverted evidence of an independent witness (PW-6) create reasonable doubt regarding the appellant’s guilt
Source reference: p. 10/122. Whether the oral statements made by the deceased to her family members and a witness qualify as reliable dying declarations
Source reference: p. 10/113. Whether the unexplained 8-day delay in filing the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case
Source reference: p. 16Law Applied
Section 302 of the IPC regarding murder
Source reference: p. 2Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof for facts within a person's knowledge
Source reference: p. 3Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) for the "sterling quality" requirement of a witness
Source reference: p. 9Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh for the principle that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted
Source reference: p. 12Laxman v. State of Maharashtra regarding the strict requirements for an oral dying declaration made in extremity
Source reference: p. 14Reasoning
The Court found that PW-2 was not a "witness of sterling quality," as she initially incriminated the appellant but later denied his involvement during cross-examination, only to revert in re-examination 4.5 years later
Source reference: p. 5, 9The Court scrutinized the evidence of PW-6, an independent witness who stated the deceased declared the appellant innocent; since PW-6 was not declared hostile or cross-examined on his Section 161 statement, his testimony remained uncontroverted
Source reference: p. 10Regarding the "dying declarations" claimed by PW-1 and PW-4, the Court noted the victim was not in extremis during her 8-day hospital stay and no formal declaration was recorded by a Magistrate or Doctor
Source reference: p. 13-15the FIR failed to mention the specific physical assaults alleged in the witness testimonies
Source reference: p. 11The Court determined that the unexplained 8-day delay in filing the FIR, despite the family allegedly knowing the cause of injury, suggested potential embellishment
Source reference: p. 16Holding
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt
It ruled that when two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and one to innocence via the testimony of PW-6—the benefit of doubt must go to the accused
Source reference: p. 12, 16The Court set aside the Judgment dated 04.12.2024, acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 302 IPC, and ordered his immediate release from judicial custody
Source reference: p. 17Original Court PDF
Sudam DasvsThe State Of Assam
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in