Gauhati High Court
Mrs Sajida Begum vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 27 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010150002022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/394/2022
MRS SAJIDA BEGUM
W/O TOUFIK ALIM
VILLAGE HATIAKHOWA, PS AND DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
2:SHRI OKANTI GOHAIN
S/O TARUN GOHAIN
BOGORIZAN (KOSUGAON) PS AND DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
785621
3:SHRI BABA KONWAR
S/O MANIK KONWAR
BOGORIZAN (KASUGAON) PS AND DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 78562
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SINHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
order
27-09-2022
[N. Kotiswar Singh, J]
Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. S.
Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. It has been submitted by Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that
the applicant is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat
vide judgment dated 21.12.2016 passed in Session Case No.198/16 has granted only
Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) for her rehabilitation though it was urged before the Court that
she would be entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs) only in terms of the notification
No.PLA No.757/2010/123 issued by the Government of Assam in that regard. It has been
submitted that because of the death of the informant's/appellant's husband at the hands of
the accused, she not only suffered serious mental trauma but also was subjected to financial
hardships as the deceased was the only earning member of the family.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant that one of
the issues being raised in this appeal is about the quantum of compensation. Learned Trial
Court while passing of the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2016 held from the evidence on
record that the deceased died leaving behind his wife and mother and he was just young.
Thus, a mother lost her young son. The learned Trial Court also observed that the financial
condition of the deceased was not so bad, however, the loss of the mother and the wife of
the deceased could not be compensated in terms of money. The learned Trial Court further
observed that the wife of the deceased is the worst sufferer and needs financial assistance
for rehabilitation and as per the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme vide notification dated
PLA 524/2015/16, the wife of the deceased is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs) only. However, the learned Trial Court took the view that the amount of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only would be just for rehabilitation of the wife of the
Page No.# 3/4
deceased and accordingly, recommended that the aforesaid amount of compensation be
awarded by the DLSA, Golaghat in exercise of the power conferred under Section 357 A (2) of
the Cr.P.C to the wife of the deceased Mrs. Sajida Begum, W/o Toufik Ali of Village-
Hatiakhowa, P.S.-Golaghat, Dist.-Golaghat, Assam.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. B. Sinha that though this plea is also a part of the appeal
which is yet to be admitted, inasmuch as, the application for condonation of delay is yet to be
allowed by this Court, it has been urged before us that irrespective of the outcome of the
application for condonation of delay or for that matter the appeal challenging the acquittal of
the accused, payment of compensation is an independent issue in the proceeding and it is
not related to the culpability of guilt of the accused. Accordingly, it has been submitted that
the issue relating to compensation may be considered even at this stage without serving any
notice to the accused who has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and it would suffice
if the State is heard in this regard.
5. At this stage, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, draws attention of
this Court to Para-19 of the judgment of the learned Trial Court where it has been recorded
by the learned Trial Court that as per the Exhibit-3, the inquest report, the injuries may be
sustained by the deceased in motor accident and that there is no direct evidence to link the
accused persons in causing death of the deceased. We have also gone through judgment
dated 21.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat. Para-19 of the
aforesaid judgment of the learned Trial Court, which is quoted herein below:
"19. Ext.3 is the post mortem report which shows that the deceased
sustained some injures. Ext-3 is silent as to by which the said injuries were
caused. The learned Defence counsel has submitted that the deceased sustained
in a motor accident. In my considered opinion, the injuries reflected in Ext.-3 may
be sustained in motor accident. I find that there is no direct evidence to link up
the accused persons in causing death of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10 has not supported the prosecution
case."
6. Accordingly, in view of the above observation of the learned Trial Court, we are of the
Page No.# 4/4
opinion that examination of the Lower Court records even for the purpose of considering the
grant of compensation would be necessary.
7. Accordingly, let the records in respect of Session Case No.198/16 be called from the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Golaghat.
8. List the matter immediately after receipt of records.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
