Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010224832014 2025:GAU-AS:14329 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./60/2014 JAMALUDDIN S/O MD. NUR ISLAM, VILL. RANGALU BASTI, P.S. KACHUA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.P C DEY, MR.A DAS,MR B CHANDA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/17 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date:16.10.2025 Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents. 2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 11.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Session Case No.229(N)/2006, convicting the appellant under Sections 498A/307 IPC, and sentencing him accordingly. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.01.2005, Musstt. Anowara khatun lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge of Kachua Police Station, inter alia, alleging therein, that on 30.01.2005, at about 12.30 a.m, the accused persons namely, Md. Jamal Uddin (appellant), herein, along with Nurul Islam and Musstt. Minara Khatun, confined her daughter Musstt. Parbina Begum in their house and with an intent to kill her, poured kerosene oil on her daughter and set her on fire. It was alleged that on account of the said act, the daughter of the informant sustained burnt injuries. The police on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Kachua Police Station Case No. 08/2005 under Section Page No.# 3/17 342/307/34 IPC. The police on conclusion of the investigation laid a charge- sheet against the appellant, herein, and 2(two) others under Sections 498A/342/323/34 IPC. The accused persons were shown as absconders, therein. The case on being committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, the same came to be transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, for disposal. The Trial Court accordingly, basing on the materials available in the charge-sheet framed a charge under Sections 498A/307/34 IPC against the appellant, herein, and the other accused persons. The appellant having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued in the matter. The prosecution during the Trial examined 6(six) witnesses including the Medical Officer. The Investigating Officer, having expired in the meanwhile, he could not be examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused persons, including the appellant, herein, were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The learned Trial Court, upon conclusion of the Trial, on an appreciation of the evidences coming on record proceeded vide Judgment dated 11.12.2013, to convict the appellant, herein, under Sections 498A/307 IPC. The other co-accused Nurul Hoque and Minara Begum, were acquitted from the charges framed against them in the matter. On his conviction under Section 498A IPC, the appellant, herein, was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Page No.# 4/17 a period of 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of 2(two) months. For the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the appellant, herein, was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 3(three) months. Being aggrieved the appellant has instituted the present proceedings. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. For a proper and due appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the evidences adduced during the Trial is to be noticed; PW-1, Musstt. Anowara Begum, the mother of the injured victim deposed that the marriage between her daughter and the appellant, herein, was solemnised about 2 years back. She further deposed that between the house of the appellant and her house there are 3(three) houses. She further deposed that after 6/7 months of the appellant and her daughter returning from Dimapur, the appellant started to pressurize her daughter to bring money from her parental house. She also deposed that the appellant had another wife Page No.# 5/17 who had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) to the appellant from her father’s house. She deposed that the appellant, herein, had assaulted and sent her daughter to her house to bring Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh), however, they being poor they had only paid Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) on two occasion totalling Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the appellant. Thereafter, she deposed that the appellant, herein, assaulted her daughter and set her on fire which she came to know from the village people. She deposed to have rushed to the house of her daughter and saw fire on the person of her daughter and the people of the village were extinguishing the fire. Thereafter she deposed that her daughter was taken to the hospital and she filed the Ejahar. She also deposed that her daughter was in the hospital for a period of around 1(one) month and the appellant had not visited her in the hospital. During her cross-examination she stated that for her daughter, the appellant had made a separate room and her daughter had stated that the appellant had set her on fire. She deposed that she had not entered inside the house, however subsequently she came to know that bed and the mosquito net of her daughter were burnt which were seized by the police. The PW1 had denied the suggestion put to her that on the night of the incident there was a kerosene lamp near the bed of her daughter and from the lamp, the mosquito net caught fire and the fire then spread upon her daughter. Page No.# 6/17 PW-2 Md. Sahajuddin deposed that on the material day, on hearing hue and cry from the house of Jamaluddin, he had rushed there and saw the door of the house was closed from inside. He pushed it but could not open, then his son Mainuddin came and opened the door by pushing the same. He then deposed that he and his son entered into the house and saw the daughter of the informant was sitting on the floor and there was fire on her. He deposed that Mainuddin poured water on her and extinguished the fire. He also deposed that the house where the victim resided was new. He also deposed that so long, he was there inside the victim’s house, the appellant, herein, had not come there. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined. During his cross-examination by the defence, he stated that he saw the kerosene lamp was lying on the ground. He further deposed that on being asked, the victim had not stated anything but had only uttered fire fire and that she will not survive and would die. PW-3 is the victim Musstt. Parbina Khatun, who deposed that after 2(two) months of her marriage with the appellant, his first wife had brought Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) from her father’s house and paid to her husband. She further deposed that she was asked by her husband to bring the same amount of money from her father’s house. She also deposed that her father being poor, she could not pay the said amount, but had paid Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) Page No.# 7/17 twice, totalling Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) from her father’s house. She deposed that as she could not pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), on 30.01.2005, at about 12.00 a.m, at night while she was in her husband’s room, she was assaulted by her husband, her father-in- law(Nurul Haque) and the first wife of her husband, Minara Khatun. She deposed that the father-in-law and the first wife of the appellant caught her inside the room and the appellant poured kerosene oil on her head and a scuffle ensued. She deposed that she had raised hue and cry for which the kerosene oil fell on her neck and in both the hands. She also deposed that her husband lighted a matchstick and set her on fire and she at that time was wearing a cotton saree. She deposed that her father had taken her to Kachua Hospital and then to Civil Hospital, Nagaon, and she was in the hospital for about a month. She further deposed that during her staying in the hospital and till the date of adducing evidence in the Trial, her husband did not enquire about her condition. During her cross-examination she stated that at the time of her marriage her husband had another wife and 2(two) children. She denied the suggestion that fire was set upon her at the time when she was with her earlier husband Amiruddin. She deposed further that the incident took place in the house newly made by her husband and on the previous day of the incident, her husband was with her in the said new house. She further denied that on the night of the incident she had requested her husband to stay with her, but the first Page No.# 8/17 wife of the appellant had asked him to stay with her, then her husband made her understand that on the previous night he having stayed with her, if on the following day also he stayed with her, his first wife will start quarrelling. She further denied the suggestion that there was a quarrel between her husband for staying with the first wife on the night of the incident and also denied that the fire was spread from the kerosene lamp while she was sleeping and the members of her husband’s family had extinguished the fire. She also stated that her father-in-law resides separately from her husband. PW-4 Kutub Uddin is the father of the victim and he deposed that after returning from Dimapur when his daughter’s husband had started residing at his own home, then the father of the appellant had asked him to extend some monetary help to his son. He further deposed that he had no money but having found no alternative he paid Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) twice to the appellant. He further deposed that the appellant had required his daughter to match the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) paid by his first wife by selling land. He deposed that on non- payment of money his daughter was assaulted by her husband and on 30.01.2005 at about 11.00 p.m on hearing hue and cry from the house of his daughter he, his wife and his sons and his daughters rushed there and saw his daughter was standing at the threshold of her room and there was fire on her body and making hue and cry as ‘mok Page No.# 9/17 marile’. He further deposed that people had poured water on her. He also deposed that on being asked by him, his daughter had reported that the appellant had set fire on her person. She also stated to have reported that the first wife of the appellant and her father-in-law were standing near them at the time of the incident. During his cross-examination he stated that his wife had lodged the FIR before the police regarding the incident. He also deposed of having filed a complaint before the Court. He deposed that the compliant was filed after 1(one) month of the incident. He deposed that in the said complaint it was written that his daughter was burnt by acid. PW-5 is the Doctor who had examined the victim girl at Nagaon Civil Hospital. The doctor in his deposition deposed that the victim girl had fresh superficial dry burn injury on the face, chest, hands arm, forearm on ventral aspect. The approximate area of burn was deposed to be 20%. The doctor further deposed that there was no smell of any inflammable substance present at the time of examination. PW-6 Musstt. Asia Khatun who is the wife of Sahajuddin(PW-2), deposed that at the time of the incident she was in her house and on hearing a hue and cry she went to the house of the appellant and after getting smell of burn she came back. She stated that she had not seen who had set fire on the victim. During her cross-examination she stated that after 10(ten) minutes of hearing hue and cry, she had gone to the place of Page No.# 10/17 incident and saw her husband and few people standing at the threshold, the door was closed from inside and on being pushed the door was opened and the victim was found lying on the ground with fire on her. The cloth of the bed was burning and there was a kerosene lamp lying near the bed. She deposed to have not known as to who had set fire on the victim. 6. The appellant, herein, had adduced evidence of a witness as DW-1. The DW-1 during his examination deposed that on hearing the hue and cry, he went to the place of occurrence and saw some people were dashing the door, since it was closed from inside. He further deposed that he, Nur Islam, Khalilur dashed the door and entered inside the house and therein, saw a kerosene lamp lying on the ground. He further deposed that he, thereafter, called the appellant who was sleeping with his first wife and after arrival of the appellant at the place of the occurrence, the victim was taken to the hospital. He had further deposed that he had asked the victim about the incident but she had stated nothing. 7. The learned Trial Court basing on the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions ; “22. From the above mentioned discussion of evidence it is clear that the victim Parbina was subjected to cruelty for non fulfilment of unlawful demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and on the material night she was set on Page No.# 11/17 fire by pouring kerosene oil. Now, the question to be determined is that amongst the three accused who has subjected her with cruelty and set her on fire. The PW 3 stated that her paramour Minara Begum brought Rs.1,00,000/- from her father’s house and paid to her husband Jamaluddin and thereafter, Jamaluddin started pressurising the victim to bring the same amount of money from her father’s house. From this statement it is not safe to hold Minara Begum guilty and instigator of the offence as because she might have compelled by the accused Jamaluddin to pay the money. There is no evidence against the accused Nurul Hoque. So, it is held that it is only the accused Jamaluddin who subjected his wife Parbina with cruelty and set her on fire. There is also no evidence against any of the accused person except Jamaluddin to set fire on Parbina. The PW3 the victim stated in her evidence that Minara and her father in law Nurul Hoque caught her and Jamaludddin poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. From this piece evidence it is not clear as to how and with what intent Minara and Nurul Hoque caught her. So, it can be safely arrived that this is the accused Jamaluddin who poured kerosene oil and lighted match stick on Parbina and set her on fire. 23. Now the another question to be determined is that whether the accused Jamaluddin set her on fire with intent to commit murder. From the evidence of victim it is seen that at 12 a.m. at night the accused Jamaluddin wanted to pour kerosene oil on the head of the victim but on being hue and cry raised by her and because of scuffle the kerosene fell on her neck and in both the hands and then the accused Jamaluddin lighted a matchstick and set Page No.# 12/17 her on fire. Needless to say that it is known to everybody that burnt injury may cause the death of a person. Here, in the instant case the offender knows that the burnt injury may likely to cause the death of a person and for this purpose he selected the head of the victim to pour kerosene oil but because of scuffle and hue and cry of victim he could not pour kerosene on the head but it was fell on her neck and in both the hands. Thereafter, he set her on fire. In all probable circumstances and in ordinary course of nature the burnt injury as discussed above might have caused the death of the victim. Timely extinguishing of fire and adequate medical treatment contributed towards recovery. From the evidence of none of the witness either of the prosecution or of the defence it is found that the accused Jamaluddin has contributed to extinguish the fire rather he came at the place of occurrence after arrival of all the village people and on their calling which is also revealed from statement of accused Jamaluddin recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.” 8. Having noticed the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Trial Court, this Court would examined the provisions of Section 498A IPC. The provisions of 498A being relevant, the same is extracted hereinbelow ; “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--- whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Page No.# 13/17 Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means --- (a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 3. On a perusal of the provisions of Section 498A IPC, it is found that the same mandates that whoever being the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3(three) years and shall also be liable to be fined. The expression ‘cruelty’ has been has been explained to be any wilful conduct which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 9. The evidences coming on record reveals that the appellant, herein, had made a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) from the victim and she was required to Page No.# 14/17 bring the said amount from her parent’s home. The evidences adduced by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 brings on record the demand of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh). The demand for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) is established by the prosecution in the matter, however, it is to be seen whether the victim was subjected to any cruelty on account of the fact that the said amount was not brought by the victim girl from her parent’s home. The evidence adduced by the PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 reflects that prior to the date of occurrence of the incident, in question, i.e. the burnt injuries sustained by the victim girl, there is no incident highlighted of commission of any cruelty by the appellant or his family upon the victim girl. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, it is apparent that the incident of cruelty was committed by the appellant and his family members only on 30.01.2005. Accordingly, the evidences coming on record is to be examined to ascertain as to whether the offence under Section 498A IPC can be held to be established against the appellant, herein. 10. A perusal of the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the setting on fire of the victim girl on 30.01.2005, it is seen that PW-3 had reported to PW-1 and PW-4, that she was set on fire by her husband i.e. the appellant, herein, along with Nurul Hoque(her father-in-law) and Minara(the first wife of the appellant). However, the evidence adduced by the PW-6, brings to the forefront that Page No.# 15/17 when the people, on hearing the hue and cry, had reached the room wherein the victim girl was staying in the house of the appellant, the door was closed from inside. PW-2 had also deposed in similar lines, however he was declared hostile. During his cross-examination he had denied of having stated before the police of having seen the appellant and his family members inside the room of the victim girl when he had arrived. The Investigating Officer in the matter having expired during the pendency of the proceedings, his deposition not being permissible to be recorded, the contradiction if any in the deposition of the appellant during the Trial and the statement made by him before the police under Section 161 CrPC could not be established. Be that as it may, the deposition of the PW-6 having brought on record that she on reaching the house of the appellant had found the door of the room, wherein, the victim girl was staying to be closed from inside, the said witness not having been declared as hostile and her evidence having been permitted to go on record, a doubt arises as to whether the burnt injuries were sustained by the victim girl on account of being set on fire by the appellant, herein, or was an accidental injury suffered by her on account of the fire spreading from the kerosene lamp which was available near the bed of the victim girl. The said position is also apparent from the deposition of the DW-1. Accordingly, a doubt arises as to whether the burn incident was so caused Page No.# 16/17 on account of the victim girl being set on fire by the appellant and his family members and/or on account of an accidental fire being set up from the kerosene oil lamp kept near the bed of the victim girl. Further the evidences coming on record having also projected that the door at the time of the incident was closed from inside, it cannot be presumed that the appellant and his family members had after setting the victim on fire, had left the room and closed the door from inside. The said aspect of the matter was not clarified by the prosecution in the matter. Accordingly, the said doubt having arrived and there being prior no incident coming to the forefront which would reflect commission of cruelty on the victim girl, by the appellant, herein, on she failing to satisfy the demand of bringing Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) from her family, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of Section 498A IPC cannot be set to have been established beyond reasonable doubt in the matter. For the reasons as noticed hereinabove, there being a doubt as to the manner in which the burn injuries were sustained by the victim girl, herein, on the date of the incident, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC cannot also be set to have been established. 11. Accordingly, a reasonable doubt having arisen in the matter with regard to the commission of an offence upon the victim girl, herein, the benefit thereof has to be extended to Page No.# 17/17 the appellant, herein. For the reasons as noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A/307 IPC cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same stands set aside. 12. The Judgment dated 11.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaon, in Session Case No.229(N)/2006, stands set aside. The appellant is set at liberty and the bail bond executed by him stands discharged. 13. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. 14. Registry to send down the records of this case to the learned Trial Court forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant