Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2014. Case: Aswini Barman Vs State of Assam & another. Guwahati High Court

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 230 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel. and For Respondent: Ms. Shamima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam Mr. K Sarma and Mr. Ditul Das, learned counsel.
JudgesMr. Ajit Singh, C.J
IssueIndian Penal Code - Sections 302, 306
Judgement DateSeptember 07, 2016
CourtGuwahati High Court


Mr. Ajit Singh, C.J

  1. The sole appellant Aswini Barman has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

  2. The victim of the incident was Kiran Bala Ray, aged about 34 years.

  3. According to the prosecution case, Kiran married to appellant about 13 years prior to the date of incident. They also have one daughter Uttara Barman (PW-5), aged 11 years. The appellant treated Kiran with cruelty for the demand of three wheeler- Auto rickshaw (Model Ape) as dowry. And on 6.2.2012, he ultimately killed Kiran by setting fire on her after pouring kerosene. Brothers of Kiran were informed and one of them, namely, Surya Kanta Roy (PW-1) made the ejahar Exhibit 1 at New Bongaigaon Police Outpost falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bongaigaon. The police on reaching the place of occurrence found the body of Kiran in the enclosed-yard about 150 yards away from appellant''s house. Exhibit 2 is the inquest report of the body of Kiran. Dr. Kochir Ali Ahmed (PW-4) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kiran. According to his post mortem examination report exhibit 4, Kiran died due to hundred percent burn injuries.

  4. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellant for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. But the trial court framed charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also.

  5. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The appellant also took the defence that perhaps Kiran might have committed suicide.

  6. The trial court relying upon the prosecution witnesses convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. The trial court, however, acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

  7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that even according to the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was not at home when the incident took place and therefore, finding of the trial court about his committing the murder of Kiran is perverse on the face of it. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, defended the conviction and sentence of appellant.

  8. Witnesses - Surya Kanta Roy (PW-1) and Bani Kanta Roy (PW-3) are brothers of Kiran. Rohini Kumar Roy (PW-2) is her father. All these witnesses have admitted that Kiran was married to appellant in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT