Ramesh Laxman Shendre v. State of Maharashtra — 1990 DIGILAW 15 (BOM)

Judgement B. U. WAHANE, J. : - This is a sad tale of an unfortunate young village woman Panchfula - a mother of two children who was subjected to ill-treatment by her husband, the appellant accused, which ultimately culminated into the tragic death in her own house and that too at the hands of her own husband, the appellant accused. 2. The appellant accused Ramesh Laxman Shendre was put on trial to face the charge of offence punishable under S. 302 of Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife Panchfula on 8th July 1985 in the evening hours at about 8.30 p.m., in village Ramapur. 3. Briefly stated the case set up by the prosecution is that the accused was resident of village Ramapur. He was married with deceased Panchfula. The parents of Panchfula belong to village Ramapur within the jurisdiction of police station, Akot district Akola. Out of the wedlock of the appellant and deceased Panchfula, they had two issues. The eldest son is by name Nandkishore who is the eye-witness of the alleged incident. The appellant came to village Ramapur along with his wife and children to reside in the neighbourhood of the parents of Panchfula and stayed in the neighbourhood of Sonabai - the mother-in-law of the appellant. The appellant husband had attributed immorality and infidelity to his wife Panchfula and thereby suspecting her character, she was subjected to ill-treatment. 3-A. On 8-7-1985 in the evening hours, appellant Ramesh returned from Akot to his village on bicycle. There is a well nearabout the hut of the appellant where Nandkishore - the son of the appellant and the prosecution witness Gajanan (PW 2) were sitting on the parapet of that well. The appellant on return seen both of them sitting on the well hearing the songs on the radio which was being played by Gajanan. The appellant went inside the house keeping the bicycle out of the house. Nandkishore followed him inside the house. After sometime, Gajanan who was sitting on the parapet of the well also left the place. 4. The appellant accused seeing Gajanan who was sitting on the well playing transistor, questioned Panchfula by saying that whether the person sitting on the well was her paramour. Deceased Panchfula naturally could not tolerate such unwarranted allegations and suspicious on her character. Consequently a wordy quarrel ensued between the husband and wife. 4. The appellant accused seeing Gajanan who was sitting on the well playing transistor, questioned Panchfula by saying that whether the person sitting on the well was her paramour. Deceased Panchfula naturally could not tolerate such unwarranted allegations and suspicious on her character. Consequently a wordy quarrel ensued between the husband and wife. In the heat of passion, the appellant collected the utensils from the house in one bag and kept on the bicycle with a view to leave the place and to go to Akot. The appellant insisted deceased Panchfula to accompany him to Akot. Panchfula was preparing meals and at the same time Nandkishore was taking his meals. Deceased Panchfula declined to accede with the request or insistence of the appellant. The accused got angry. He lifted kerosene tin, poured kerosene on the person of Panchfula and set her on fire by igniting stick from the match box. Son Nandkishore witnessed the entire incident. 5. It is the prosecution case that immediately Panchfula was set on fire and after seeing the flames of burning clothes of Panchfula, son Nandkishore started shouting that, "the accused (his father), poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her on fire"! Panchfula was crying due to agony that her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire. 6. Hearing the hue and cry of injured Panchfula and son Nandkishore, the relations of the deceased and the neighbours rushed to the house of the appellant. They found the flames and Panchfula in agony. They extinguished the fire. At the time, the appellant was about to escape from the spot of the incident. Subhash and Jagdeo - the brother and maternal uncle of deceased respectively caught hold the accused and did not allow him to go away. Deceased Panchfula and Nandkishore immediately told the persons gathered there that accused Ramesh poured kerosene oil on the person of Panchfula and set her on fire. The accused Ramesh begged for pardon for the misdeeds he has committed. Out of so many relatives and neighbours who have gone to the house of the appellant, the prosecution have examined Subhash (PW 4) brother of deceased, Jagdeo (PW 6) maternal uncle of deceased, Smt. Sonabai Sahare (PW 8) the mother of deceased, Smt. Kamlabai Hiware (PW 7) sister of deceased; Gajanan (PW 2), Jagannath (PW 9), Punaji (PW 10) and Jagannath (PW 11). 7. The relatives of Panchfula and other villagers immediately took her to village Bordi in a cart and from there to the police station, Akot in one tractor. They reached at the police station at about 10.45 p.m. Injured Panchfula reported the matter to Shri Choudhary, PSI who recorded her statement as oral report (Ex.59). On the basis of the oral report lodged by Panchfula, an offence was registered under S. 307, Penal Code against the appellant accused. Panchfula being received severe burn injuries, Shri Choudhary immediately sent her to Municipal Hospital, Akot. Shri Choudhary also sent a requisition to Shri Kharche, the Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration of Panchfula, her condition being found critical due to severe burn injuries. Dr. Raut who was on duty at the relevant time in the hospital, treated Panchfula. The Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of Panchfula at about 11.30p.m. on 8-7-1985 itself after ascertaining from Dr. Raut that the patient Panchfula is in a position to give her statement. On being satisfied by Dr. Raut that she is in a fit condition to give a statement, Shri Kharche, the Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration. 8. The condition of Panchfula being serious, she was removed to District Hospital, Akola on 9-7-1985. Dr. Borkhede who was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer admitted her in burn ward. Panchfula died on 13-7-1985 at about 1.45 hours in the night. Consequently an offence was altered to 302, I.P.C. 9. The Investigation Officer prepared the Inquest Panchnama vide Ex. 28 in presence of witnesses. The body was sent for autopsy. Dr. Nikte and Dr. Ayyar performed autopsy on 13-7-1985. Dr. Nikte opined that Panchfula died due to extensive burns all over her body. 10. Mr. Chaudhary, P.S.I. had gone on the spot on 9-7-1985 and prepared spot panchnama Ex. 22. He seized the kerosene tin, utensils, bicycle of the accused, burnt clothes of deceased Panchfula etc. from the spot of incident. The incriminating articles including the kerosene tin and vicera were sent to Chemical Analyser vide Exs. 33 and 34 for analysis. The Chemical Analyser detected residues of kerosene in all the exhibits. 11. The Investigating Officer Shri Chaudhary, P.S.I. recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot on 30-9-1985. 33 and 34 for analysis. The Chemical Analyser detected residues of kerosene in all the exhibits. 11. The Investigating Officer Shri Chaudhary, P.S.I. recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot on 30-9-1985. An offence being punishable under S. 302, Penal Code, it was committed to Court of Session for trial of the accused. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola framed a charge under S. 302, Penal Code against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under S. 313 of Criminal P.C., he put forward the defence of complete denial and he stated that he has been falsely implicated. The appellant accused further stated in his defence that his wife Panchfula herself poured kerosene oil on her person and ignited. Thus, she committed suicide. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the charge duly brought home to the accused. He was consequently convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. 13. Before proceeding further, we may point out that the cause of death of Smt. Panchfula was not challenged before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. Dr. Satyadeo Raut, PW 16 had examined Panchfula on 8-7-1985 as well as he gave treatment. He deposed that Panchfula had extensive burns all over her body estimating 65%. He issued the certificate to that effect which is at Ex. 54. The post-mortem report dt. 13-7-1985 is at Ex. 30. The doctor who performed autopsy had opined that death caused due to "shock due to burn". 14. Admittedly, in this case, there is direct evidence of Nandkishore (PW 3) the son of the appellant accused and the dying declarations -oral as well as scribed by the Executive Magistrate Shri Sadashiv Kharche (PW 17). Shri Kharche recorded the dying declaration on the day of the incident i.e. on 8-7-1985 at 11.30 p.m. Besides this evidence, the prosecution also placed on record the evidence regarding the conduct of accused immediately after the incident as well as about the cruel treatment which he has given to Panchfula. Shri Kharche recorded the dying declaration on the day of the incident i.e. on 8-7-1985 at 11.30 p.m. Besides this evidence, the prosecution also placed on record the evidence regarding the conduct of accused immediately after the incident as well as about the cruel treatment which he has given to Panchfula. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the evidence of Nandkishore partly, relied upon the dying declarations made by deceased immediately to her kith and kins and neighbours who rushed to her hut after hearing her shouts and that of her son Nandkishore. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also believed on the evidence of the witnesses regarding the disclosure to them by Nandkishore about the fact that, "his father poured kerosene oil on the person of Panchfula and thereafter he set her on fire". Similarly, he considered the dying declaration made by Smt. Panchfula to Dr. Satyadeo Raut (PW 16) and dying declaration Ex. 57 recorded by Shri Sadashiv Kharche, Executive Magistrate (PW 17). According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the evidence of the eye-witness, the dying declarations and other circumstances led to the irresistible conclusion that Smt. Panchfula was done to death by the accused. 15. We have heard Shri Thakur the learned advocate for the appellant accused and Shri Khamborkar the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 16. In assailing the conviction, it was vehemently contended by Shri Thakur that there is a direct contradiction between the evidence of Nandkishore and the version in dying declaration at Ex. 57. Shri Thakur the learned counsel for the appellant given much stress on the admission of Nandkishore in his evidence to the effect that : "My mother poured kerosene oil on her person from the bottle." Similarly, he attracted our attention to another piece of evidence which has been brought in the cross-examination which is as follows : "It is true that my mother refused to accompany my father to Akot and she threatened my father to end her life by setting her on fire, if my father did not stay at Ramapur. She also threatened my father to implicate in the case." The learned counsel for the accused also assailed the dying declaration on the ground that the document or the requisition which was given to doctor asking him about the condition of the patient has not been placed on record and the dying declaration instead of recording in the question and answer form, it has been recorded in narration form. On these grounds Shri Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of Shri Sadashiv Kharche, Executive Magistrate and that of Dr. Satyadeo Raut (PW 16) deserves to be discarded. Shri Thakur also submitted that the inference drawn regarding the rejection of evidence of Nandkishore on the point that his mother poured kerosene oil on her person and set fire, is neither plausible nor logical. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the court below and submitted that it can be safely inferred from the evidence of eyewitness Nandkishore and dying declarations, together with other circumstances that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions. We propose to examine each set of evidence and to see whether taken together they are sufficient to raise inference that the victim was done to death by the accused. 17. The prosecution relied on the solitary evidence of eye-witness i.e. the son of deceased and appellant by name Nandkishore (PW 3) who is of tender age of 10 years. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Judge ought to have believed the evidence of Nandkishore, the son of deceased and appellant when he specifically deposed : "Then my mother poured kerosene on her person from the bottle.............My mother set her clothes on fire by igniting stick from match box." Further in cross-examination also he deposed that : "It is true that my mother refused to accompany my father to Akot and she threatened my father to end her life by setting her on fire, if my father did not stay at Ramapur. She also threatened my father to implicate in the case." In view of the evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acquittal. The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence and we too are not considering this evidence as trustworthy. She also threatened my father to implicate in the case." In view of the evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for acquittal. The learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the evidence and we too are not considering this evidence as trustworthy. No doubt, the evidence of child witness is to be taken with great caution. Normally the evidence of child witnesses should not be accepted as it is notoriously dangerous unless immediately available and unless narrated before any possibility of coaching is eliminated. It is a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child, whether sworn or unsworn but there is a rule of prudence and not of a law. In the instant case, Nandkishore did not disclose the fact, that his mother poured kerosene oil on her person from the bottle and ignited herself, either immediately to the relations and neighbours assembled at the spot or to the police at any time. The evidence of this witness was recorded on 3-1-1986 and he for the first time twisted the story and deposed as above. There is no corroboration whatsoever to the statement made by the son. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely and, therefore, it is to be outrightly rejected. The learned trial court has rightly held that the young boy developed a natural instinct or he might have been either influenced by his father or tutored by the relations of his father to give the evidence in the fashion referred to above. 18. Contrary to the few lines which Nandkishore deposed in his evidence that the mother has committed the suicide, the evidence on record that appellant is the perpetrator is voluminous and that too in his deposition which has been substantially corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses which is depicted hereunder : Nandkishore (PW 3) : "Then I raised shouts that my father poured kerosene on the person of my mother and I again shouted "Dhaware Bappa'. I voluntarily raised the shouts. My mother received burn injuries on her stomach, thighs, feet and on entire person............... At that time my maternal uncle Subhash and grand father Jagdeo came there and apprehended my father................I accompanied my mother to police station Akot. I voluntarily raised the shouts. My mother received burn injuries on her stomach, thighs, feet and on entire person............... At that time my maternal uncle Subhash and grand father Jagdeo came there and apprehended my father................I accompanied my mother to police station Akot. In police station my mother said that, 'father of Nandu poured kerosene on her person and set her clothes on fire'." Gajanan s/o Janrao Varthi (PW 2) : In para 2 he deposed : "at about 7 to 9 p.m. in the night Nandkishorc raised crieds and shouted that his father poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her on fire. He uttered ('Mai Bappane Myazya Aichya Angawar Ghaslet Takun Chetun Dele' )." Subhash s/o Ralaram Sahare (PW 4) : "The alleged incident taken place about 6 months back. It was the time of about 8 p.m. in the night. At the time of incident. I was sitting in my house along with my brother Vasant, maternal uncle Jagdeo. My mother was cooking meals. Nandkishore my sister's son shouted that, "my mother caught fire (Dhaware Bappa, Dhaware Bappa)". Then myself, my mother and my maternal uncle rushed to the house of my sister." Jagdeo s/o Ganpat Raut (PW 6) : "At the time of incident, I was present in village Ramapur. My village Shivpur is situated at a distance of 1 mile from Ramapur. When the alleged incident taken place, I was present in the house of Sonabai along with her son Vasanta and Subhash. We were gossipping .............I heard shouts of deceased Panchafula and her son Nandkishore. Panchafula shouted "Male Jailere Bappa" Nandkishore also shouted that his father poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her clothes on fire. Myself, my sister's sons Subhash and Vasanta immediately rushed to the spot of incident...................." Smt. Sonabai d/o Rajaram Sahare (PW 8) : "My daughter Panchafula married with accused Ramesh present in the Court. She was residing in my neighbourhood, at Ramapur.....................At the time of occurrence, I was cooking meals. My brother Jagdeo and my son Subhash and Vasant were talking in the room. The alleged incident taken place at about 8 p.m. in the night. Panchafula and Nandkishore made shouts. She was residing in my neighbourhood, at Ramapur.....................At the time of occurrence, I was cooking meals. My brother Jagdeo and my son Subhash and Vasant were talking in the room. The alleged incident taken place at about 8 p.m. in the night. Panchafula and Nandkishore made shouts. Nandkishore shouted that his father poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her on fire." Jagannath s/o Bapurao Shamlate (PW 9) : "..........My house is situated in Zopadpatti beyond 2-3 houses of the house of accused. At about 8 p.m. in the night, I was taking meals in my house. Nandkishore son of accused was shouting that his father poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her on fire by igniting stick from match box.................." Punjaji s/o Punaji Kokare (PW 10) : "..............My hut is situated 4 huts beyond the house of accused. The alleged incident taken place about 5-6 months back at about 8 p.m. in the night. At that time, I was present in my house. Nandkishore son of accused shouted that his father poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her on fire. Therefore, I rushed towards the house of the accused." Tulshiram s/o Bakaram Gajbe (PW 11) : ".....................The alleged incident taken place about 6 months back, at about 8 p.m. in the night. At that time, I was taking meals in my house. My house is situated beyond 10 to 15 huts from the house of the accused. Nandkishore came towards my hut and he was crying. He said that accused Ramesh (his father) poured kerosene on the person of his mother and set her on fire by igniting stick from match box. Then we rushed towards the spot of incident................." 19. The above unimpeachable and the most eloquent evidence led to an unfailing assurance that the child Nandkishore disclosed immediately that his father poured kerosene oil on the person of his mother Panchafula and set her on fire. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant attacked the dying declaration recorded by Shri Sadashiv Kharche, the Executive Magistrate (PW 17). However no comments were made about the statement disclosing that her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire, made to her relations and neighbours who assembled immediately after hearing the shouts from her and her son Nandkishore. However no comments were made about the statement disclosing that her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire, made to her relations and neighbours who assembled immediately after hearing the shouts from her and her son Nandkishore. Similarly, at the earliest movement, when she was taken to the police station, Akot she lodged the first information report wherein she has made the same disclosure. Besides these, Panchafula also stated to the doctor who treated her and subsequently disclosed the above fact to Shri Sadashiv Kharche, the Executive Magistrate who recorded her dying declaration. The dying declarations are the statements of the persons who are dead. Statements written or oral of the relevant facts as to the cause of the death and as to the nature and circumstances of the transactions which resulted in the death in cases in which the cause of death comes into question are admissible under S. 32(1) of the Evidence Act. It is immaterial to whom the declaration is made. The declaration may be made to a police officer or to a private person. A dying declaration may be oral or it may be reduced in writing by any other person, but in either case, it must be duly proved. 21. Before the dying declaration can be admitted in evidence, it must be proved that : (i) A statement, written or verbal is made by a person who is dead; as to the cause of his death or to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death; (ii)The cause of that person's death is in question. The statement must relate to the injuries which have brought him or her to that condition or the circumstances under which those injuries came to be inflicted. The dying declaration is made at a time when the person making the statement is in danger of losing his or her life. At such a serious and solemn movement, such a person is not expected to tell lies. The dying declaration is made at a time when the person making the statement is in danger of losing his or her life. At such a serious and solemn movement, such a person is not expected to tell lies. Therefore, normally a dying declaration has a special sanctity and on this principle it is respected because a person who is at the threshold of death or who must be apprehensive about continuance of life, may not like to die with a lie on his/ her lips as the parting memory unless there are clear circumstances brought out in the evidence to show that there are variations almost amount to contradictions or introduced altogether different stories, which creates certain doubts about the truthfulness of the versions given to the words put in the mouth of the deceased. The deceased is not alive to admit or deny that he made a particular statement. It is a reproduction of the statement as recorded either verbally or in writing, and therefore, there is necessity of clearly scrutinising the statements alleged to be made by the deceased and if more than one statements are attributed to the deceased, to find out whether there is consistency in the substantial part of the version given by the deceased. It is in this light that the necessity to grant scrutiny is essential. 22. Considering the evidence on record, nothing has been brought either in the cross-examination or shown any infirmity in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to disbelieve the statements made by deceased Panchafula. There are various statements made by deceased Panchafula alleging that her husband poured kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire. These are as follows : (i) Subhash Rajaram Sahare (PW 4) deposed that : "When we entered in the hut, we saw my sister sustained burn injuries on all over her body and she was lying on the ground. She uttered that father of Nandu poured kerosene on her person and set her clothes on fire by igniting stick of match box." (ii)Jagdeo Ganpat Raut (PW 6), deposed that : "I heard shouts of deceased Panchafula and her son Nandkishore . She uttered that father of Nandu poured kerosene on her person and set her clothes on fire by igniting stick of match box." (ii)Jagdeo Ganpat Raut (PW 6), deposed that : "I heard shouts of deceased Panchafula and her son Nandkishore . Panchafula shouted "Male Jailere Bappa".........................Panchafula did tell before all these persons that she was set on fire by her husband." (iii) Smt. Sonabai Rajaram Sahare (PW 8) deposed that : "...............Panchafula also shouted that accused Ramesh poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire." 23. The second dying declaration is the F.I.R. at Exh. 59 where deceased Panchafula disclosed that fact that her husband poured kerosene on her person and then lighted the match stick and set her on fire. Thirdly, when she was taken to the Municipal Hospital, Akot Dr. Satyadeo Raut (PW 16) examined the patient and gave her treatment. Dr. Satyadeo Raut also deposed that injured Panchafula did tell to him that she was set on fire by her husband and he recorded it. She gave him this information when he put her question as to how such incident occurred. 24. Fourthly, the dying declaration was recorded by Sadashiv Kharche, Executive Magistrate (P.W. 17) on 8-7-1985 at about 11-30 p.m : which is at Ex. 57. Shri Kharche, Executive Magistrate (P.W. 17) deposed that after receiving the requisition from the Police Station, Akot for recording the dying declaration of Panchafula, who was admitted in the hospital he immediately went to the hospital. He first met Dr. Raut who was present in the hospital. He made enquiries from the doctor whether the patient was in a fit condition to give dying declaration, expressing that he came to the hospital to record her dying declaration. The doctor certified that the patient is in a fit condition to give dying declaration and he can record the dying declaration of Panchafula. At the time of recording the dying declaration, the Police Constable and other persons those who were present in the ward were directed to leave the room. After all left the room, then only he recorded the dying declaration. Dr. Satyadeo Raut (P.W. 16) also deposed that Mr. Kharche sought permission from him to record the dying declaration of panchafula. I examined the patient. After all left the room, then only he recorded the dying declaration. Dr. Satyadeo Raut (P.W. 16) also deposed that Mr. Kharche sought permission from him to record the dying declaration of panchafula. I examined the patient. I gave separate certificate on the memo given by police that the patient was in fully conscious condition and was able to give dying declaration. Mr. Kharche then started recording dying declaration. The doctor's endorsement has been exhibited as Ex. 55 on the dying declaration itself i.e. Ex. 57. 25. On fifth occasion, Panchafula disclosed the above facts to Gomaji (P.W. 5) when he met her in the hospital. Panchafula was the eldest sister of his wife. He deposed that in hospital, Panchafula said that "her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire". She told him the above incident immediately when he met her in the ward. Similarly, there is an evidence on record of Kamlabai, the sister of deceased (P.W. 7) to the effect that : "On second time I met her at Akola in the hospital she received burn injuries on all over body. When I made query from her about the incident, she replied that her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her clothes on fire." 26. Besides the evidence of eye-witness and all the dying declarations the learned trial Judge also considered the conduct of the accused and the extra judicial confession. Subhash (P.W. 4) has deposed that accused was begging pardon and he said that he had committed mischief and he be forgiven. This evidence is fully supported by the evidence of Jagdeo (P.W. 6) who deposed that accused Ramesh requested him to forgive and promised not to repeat the act. Admittedly the accused was caught outside the house when he was to escape from the place of incident. It means witnesses Jaideo and Subhash were required to apply force to prevent him from going away. There is evidence also that the accused offered resistance. The circumstances of the case and the evidence on record indicate that he begged for pardon only because he was caught red-handed immediately after the happening of the incident. It is no doubt, the extra Judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. There is evidence also that the accused offered resistance. The circumstances of the case and the evidence on record indicate that he begged for pardon only because he was caught red-handed immediately after the happening of the incident. It is no doubt, the extra Judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. But in the instant case praying for apology or begging pardon by the accused indicates that he really did commit the act of burning his wife and he was repenting for the same. 27. Considering the dying declarations, the evidence of Nandkishore, the son of the appellant and the deceased the extra judicial confession of the accused and his immediate conduct, the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rightly found him guilty. There is nothing on record that any of her relations tutored Panchafula before she gave statements implicating her husband. The statements made by Panchafula were voluntary, without any tutoring or concoction. Though it has been suggested that she has committed suicide by pouring on her person kerosene oil and setting herself on fire, but no circumstance has been brought as to why she will commit suicide. In the present case, Panchafula has no reason to commit suicide and to implicate the accused in this case. 28. As a result of foregoing discussion we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the accused is bad and unsustainable. We are of the opinion that he was rightly convicted and sentenced. No interference is called for. The appeal of the accused has no force and must be dismissed. The appeal is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.