1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  No(s). 1597 OF 2009

KANAILAL SARKAR                                    Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL                           Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) This appeal arises out of the conviction of the appellant,

father-in-law  of  the  deceased-Laxmi  Rani  under  Section  306

I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

five years.

(2) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the

victim-Laxmi Rani was married to Dilip Kumar Sarkar son of the

appellant at the young age.  Further case of the prosecution is

that the appellant, father-in-law of the deceased was harassing

her and that her husband is not working and she has to bring

money from her parents.   On 10th October, 1986 at 10.00 a.m.

2

father-in-law  (appellant  herein)  and  mother-in-law  of  the

deceased-Laxmi  Rani  are  said  to  have  quarrelled  with  the

deceased-Laxmi Rani and assaulted her due to which Laxmi Rani

was about to return to her parents’ house; but at that time the

appellant forcibly took her inside the house, poured kerosene

on  her  and  set  her  on  fire.   Laxmi  Rani  was  admitted  to

hospital and later on she succumbed to her injuries.  An FIR

was  initially  registered  under  Sections  326,  307  and  498-A

I.P.C. which was subsequently altered to Section 302 read with

Section 34 I.P.C.

(3) Upon  consideration  of  the  evidence  and  the  dying

declaration  of  the  deceased-Laxmi  Rani  and  also  dying

declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW-9), the

Trial  Court  held  that  the  dying  declaration  is  true  and

voluntary and accordingly convicted both, the appellant herein

and the second accused, namely, mother-in-law of the deceased-

Laxmi Rani under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C.

However, they were acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A

I.P.C.

(4) In  appeal,  the  second  accused,  mother-in-law  of  the

deceased-Laxmi Rani, was acquitted on the ground that there was

no evidence and the prosecution has not proved her guilt.  So

far as the appellant herein is concerned, the High Court has

referred to the evidence of Dilip Kumar Sarkar (PW-4), husband

of  the  deceased-Laxmi  Rani,  that  he  admitted  her  in  the

3

hospital and the High Court held that it was a case of suicide.

However, the High Court held that because of torture by the

appellant  i.e.  father-in-law,  it  must  be  held  that  the

appellant has abetted the suicide and on those findings the

High Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. and

sentenced  him  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  five  years  as

aforesaid.

(5) We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-State and also perused the

impugned judgment and the evidence/materials on record.

(6) In  the  dying  declaration  recorded  by  the  Executive

Magistrate  (PW-9),  the  deceased-Laxmi  Rani  has  clearly

submitted about the overt act of the appellant pouring kerosene

and setting her on fire.  Having regard to the evidence of PW-

1, father of the deceased-Laxmi Rani and the dying declaration

recorded by the Executive Magistrate (PW-9), the offence would

fall  under  Section  302  I.P.C.   Since  the  State  has  not

preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant

under Section 302 I.P.C. and since the occurrence was of the

year  1986,  we  do  not  propose  to  go  into  this  aspect  any

further.

(7) Suffice to note that the conviction of the appellant under

Section 306 I.P.C. is to be upheld.  Since, it is brought in

4

evidence  that  the  deceased-Laxmi  Rani  was  subjected  to

harassment at the hands of the appellant, we do not find any

reason  warranting  interference  with  the  conviction  of  the

appellant and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.

(8) The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(9) The appellant shall surrender to custody within a period

of  four  weeks  from  today  to  serve  the  remaining  sentence

failing which he shall be taken to custody.

(10) A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court

for necessary action.      

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (INDIRA BANERJEE)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 4, 2018.