Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 434 (MP)

Kamla Bai v. State of M. P.

2005-03-24

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2005
JUDGMENT Kulshrestha, J. -- The appellant convict has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 29.1.1998 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in ST No. 219/96, by which the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced her to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, the judgment directs her to suffer further RI for one month. According to the prosecution, Munnibai (deceased) was resident of, Waradholia-Tola where she was residing with her mother Leelabai and earning livelihood by making baskets. She had married Dharamdas ten years ago but the marriage was not successful and she had separated, and was living with her mother. On 23.5.1996, she had gone with accused Kamlabai to the Range Office, Kirnapur to bring bamboos. On return in the evening, Kamlabai invited her to the house of her mother in the same village and accordingly, she went to her house. Kamlabai (accused) was residing after marriage in village Risewada and had come to her parents house in village Dholia-Tola on Monday. She suggested to the deceased that since her husband has deserted her, she may accompany her to village Risewada where she may select another husband. The deceased refused, which enraged Kamlabai to such an extent that she picked up the lantern and sprinkled kerosene oil on her sari. The deceased Munnibai rushed out to make a complaint about this indecent and abnormal behaviour of the accused to the Village Kotwar. Kamlabai came chasing her, abused her and stating that she was thinking that she was smart and that she would punish her, lighted a match and set her on fire. The kerosene sprinkled on the sari of the deceased being inflammable caught fire and she raised an alarm with the result Leelabai and Jamnabai rushed to extinguish the fire. On account of the fire, she sustained severe bums on her back, waist, both hands and chest. The incident was witnessed by her mother and her mother's sister. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of the Dehati Nalish Ex. P-3, an offence under section 307 of the IPC was registered against the accused. During investigation, on account of death of Munnibai, the offence was converted to one under section 302 of the IPC. The incident was witnessed by her mother and her mother's sister. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of the Dehati Nalish Ex. P-3, an offence under section 307 of the IPC was registered against the accused. During investigation, on account of death of Munnibai, the offence was converted to one under section 302 of the IPC. After investigation and collection of evidence available in the case, the accused was prosecuted. The accused denied the charge and having committed any offence and stated that she had not set afire Munnibai and she had been falsely implicated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced her as stated hereinabove. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case, the case of the prosecution hinges on the dying declaration of deceased Munnibai Ex. P-7 A and the dying declaration (Dehati Nalish) Ex. P-3 recorded by T.P. Mishra (PW 5). According to him, if the accused had really intended to cause death, there was no reason why she just sprinkled kerosene oil on her clothes and did not take the follow up action till the deceased started going to the Kotwar to make a report about it. To appreciate the prosecution evidence and the submissions of the learned counsel, it would be advantageous to refer to the first document namely Dehati Nalish Ex. P-3 recorded by T.P. Mishra (PW 5). Dehati Nalish was lodged on 24.5.1996 at 6.40 hours by the deceased herself in which the deceased has given full narration of the incident. We may observe that if the intention of the accused had not been to cause death of the deceased and it was under a momentary impulse that she lighted the match to set her afire, she would have taken some measures to extinguish the fire. It is not even suggested that the accused made any attempt in that direction. Only her mother Leelabai and mother's sister Jamnabai tried to extinguish the fire. T.P. Mishra (PW 5), ASI has stated that on 24.5.1996 he was posted as ASI in Police Station Kirnapur. On that date Munnibai made a report, which he recorded as Dehati Nalish vide Ex. P-3. After coming back to the police station he registered the offence vide Ex. P-4. T.P. Mishra (PW 5), ASI has stated that on 24.5.1996 he was posted as ASI in Police Station Kirnapur. On that date Munnibai made a report, which he recorded as Dehati Nalish vide Ex. P-3. After coming back to the police station he registered the offence vide Ex. P-4. Munnibai was thereafter sent for medical examination under requisition Ex. P-5. Vide Ex. P-6 query was also sent to the doctor with regard to the report of her injuries. He has admitted in cross-examination that this Dehati Nalish was recorded in the hospital. In the dying declaration Ex. P-7 A, the deceased had clearly stated that when she was at Waradholia-Tola, the accused had asked her to accompany her to village Risewada where she could select another husband which led to quarrel and she sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her afire. Dr. M.R. Bhoyar (PW 15) had examined Munnibai and recorded the bums sustained by her. He also recorded her dying declaration Ex. P-7 A and a question was also asked in which she clearly narrated that the accused had set her afire. He has refuted the suggestion that at the time when the dying declaration Ex. P-7 A was being recorded, Munnibai was not able to speak coherently or that she was not in a fit mental state. Not only the above two written dying declarations, but also the evidence with regard to the deceased having made oral dying declaration to the witnesses, the prosecution has examined PW 1 Maneyram who is the Kotwar of the village. The Kotwar has deposed that Munnibai went to his house on the date of the incident. On being asked by the Kotwar, Munnibai told that Kamlabai had set her on fire. Similarly, Jamnabai (PW 12) has stated that on being informed about the incident, she went to Munnibai and asked her about it. Munnibai told her that Kamlabai had set her afire. We have perused the medical evidence, the evidence of written dying declaration and the oral dying declaration; each corroborating the other indicating that enraged by refusal of the deceased the appellant not only poured kerosene oil on her sari but when the deceased proceeded to make a report thereof to the village Kotwar, she chased her and lighted a match to set her afire. It is, therefore, clear that accused intended to cause the death of the deceased and that she achieved her object. We do not find any extenuating circumstances in the present case that mitigate the' offence of the accused. It is clear from the evidence that she is guilty of an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, we do not find any merit or substance in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.