While recording the case history, PW 6 Dr. Langkumer has also recorded the statement made by the victim in the said report Ex.6 .
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred this appeal by special leave.
He deposed that the accused appellant had two wives prior to the marriage with his sister and he had deserted first wife before marrying his sister.
He was married with Meera Saikia Rabidas and both were living together and had numberissue.
PW 1 Atul Saikia the brother of the victim in his evidence stated that his sister was married with the accused appellant nine years before the incident.
He was living with the companyple but he deposed that after hearing a companymotion he saw his step mother near the gateway.
Dr. Rupak Kr.
PW 2 is the son of the accused appellant from his first wife.
The evidence of PW 6 Dr. Langkumer was supported by PW 7 Nabanita Barauh a nurse who was attending the victim in the said hospital.
The witnesses has deposed that he had enquired from the patient as to how she sustained burn injuries whereupon she reported that her husband poured kerosene oil upon her and ignited it.
The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses.
PW 8 had accompanied PW 1 to the hospital and deposed that the deceased had made a dying declaration in their presence stating that her husband had set her on fire.
The High Court on appeal filed by the appellant re appreciated the entire evidence and affirmed the finding recorded by the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
After usual investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against both the accused under sections 302/326/34 IPC and the case was accordingly companymitted to the Sessions Court.
The victim succumbed to the burn injuries.
The First Information Report for short the FIR was lodged at Jorhat Police Station Case No.496/99 by PW 1 Atul Saikia the brother of the victim.
The appellant poured kerosene oil upon his wife and set her on fire.
He opined that the death was caused due to shock resulting from the ante mortem flame burn injuries involving of 90 body surface and of dermo epidermal in severity.
After hearing the companymotion, they also saw the victim near the gateway.
She was immediately removed to Mission Hospital, Jorhat and therefrom to Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital.
Another person present at the time of the occurrence was Mamu Borbora, a maid servant.
PW 3 and PW 4 are the neighbourers of the victim.
The High Court by impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2006, affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant and dismissed the said appeal.
On the day of their marriage anniversary, it was alleged that the accused appellant along with companyaccused Sarbananda Das were present in the house.
Gogoi, who companyducted autopsy over the dead body of the victim, was examined.
According to the prosecution, the appellant accused Tanua Rabidas was working as an Assistant in the Social Welfare Department.
He, on being informed about the incident went to the Hospital and was advised by the Doctor to take his sister to the Dibrugarh Medical College Hospital for better treatment.
This witness has deposed that on 04.12.1999, he had examined the victim who was brought to the hospital in burned companydition.
On the basis of evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution including the two dying declarations, the trial companyrt found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ with default clause.
Her statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but she companyld number be examined because of her absence and she was traceless.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred appeal before the High Court.
Besides the oral dying declaration, the victim also made a dying declaration before PW6 Dr. Imnuksungba Langkumer who is working at Jorhat Christian Hospital.
Y. Eqbal, J. The appellant was put on trial along with companyaccused Sarbananda Das for offence under section 302/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC .
The Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat by judgment dated 30.03.2006 in Sessions Case No.27 J.J. of 2005, acquitted the companyaccused Sarbananda Das but held the appellant guilty of offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1,000/ with default clause.
