Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 111 (JHR)

Onkar Prasad Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2006-02-14

M.Y.EQBAL, N.DHINAKAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant Onkar Prasad Gupta and his father Sri Prasad Gupta, were arrayed as A1 and A2 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1987/23 of 1988 for an offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. After trial, the trial Judge, acquitted Sri Prasad Gupta, but finding the appellant alone guilty under Section 302, IPC, convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life. 2. The facts are as follows: 3. The deceased Nirupa Devi was given in marriage to the appellant Onkar Prasad Gupta, about five years prior to the date of the incident. After marriage, the appellant and the deceased Nirupa were living as tenant in the house of PW2. the landlord of the said house. The deceased did not conceive and there used to be quarrels between the deceased and the appellant on account of that. This is said to be the motive for the unfortunate incident which took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 25th April 1986. 4. On 25th April, 1986, at about 8.00 p.m. PW1 was returning to her house after her work. When she was nearing the house of the deceased and the appellant, she heard an alarm emitting from the house of the deceased. She peeped through the window, saw the fire and raised alarm. She pushed the door, but it was found locked from inside. She saw the appellant coming out of the house and thereafter fleeing away. On hearing the cries of PW1, the land lord PW2, and neighbours also rushed to the place and found the appellant running away from the scene of the occurrence. The deceased was thereafter taken to the hospital where she was admitted for treatment, as she had received burn injuries. On receipt of information, PW8, brother of the deceased and other relatives of the deceased Nirupa reached the hospital. PW8 found her sister Nirupa with burn injuries and when questioned, she informed him that the appellant had poured kerosene and set her ablaze. On receipt of the information PW9, Mrinal Kanti Sandi, reached the Hospital at Pakur to whom PW8 gave fardbeyan (Ext 4) which was recorded and on the basis thereof the first information report (FIR) was registered at the police station and investigation was taken up by him. On receipt of the information PW9, Mrinal Kanti Sandi, reached the Hospital at Pakur to whom PW8 gave fardbeyan (Ext 4) which was recorded and on the basis thereof the first information report (FIR) was registered at the police station and investigation was taken up by him. He prepared the seizure list (Ext 7) for the articles found at the scene of the occurrence and recorded statements of PWs. 3 & 4. 5. After death of the deceased Nirupa Devi, at 1.00 p.m. on 26-4-1986 the police officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter requisition was made to the doctor to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. 6. On receipt of the requisition, PW3 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal, CAS attached to the Govt. Hospital, at Pakur conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 26-4-1986 and he found the following injuries: Deep extensive burn injury of the whole body except scalp, feet and perineum. Skin detached of both palmer aspects of hands, deep fasea and muscles hypermaenic, skin detached of the right shoulder, right fore arm, right thigh, left thigh, lower half of the back with extensive hypermacuric blabes on the left fore-arm. The doctor issued Ext 3, post mortem certificate, opining that the death is on account of extensive burns and shock. 7. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellant. 8. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant, he denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side. 9. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing as an amicus curiae strenuously contends that since the occurrence was not witnessed by anyone, the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant especially when it found his father not guilty. The learned Counsel submits that PW2, the landlord, was motivated to give false evidence, as he was hell-bent to evict the appellant from his house. He submits that in the above circumstances, the appellants is entitled for acquittal. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State and perused the materials on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased Nirupa Devi died on account of burn injuries, which stands established through the evidence of the doctor, PW3 and the post mortem certificate given by him. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State and perused the materials on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the deceased Nirupa Devi died on account of burn injuries, which stands established through the evidence of the doctor, PW3 and the post mortem certificate given by him. The evidence of the doctor and the certificate given by him shows that the deceased died on account of the burn injuries. 12. The question now to be decided by us is whether these burn injuries were caused by the appellant, or whether they were accidental in nature as claimed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in this appeal. 13. From the perusal of the materials placed before us, we find that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 shows that the deceased and the appellant used to quarrel very often and that the appellant was aggrieved with his wife, the deceased, as she did not conceive even after five years of marriage. In this background, when we look into the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 4, who are independent witnesses, we find that on the date of the incident at about 8.00 p.m. when PW1 was returning to her house after her daily work, she heard cries coming out of the house of the deceased and that according to her, when she peeped through the window, she found the deceased in flames. She further stated that she knocked the door, which was bolted from inside and then the appellant came out of the room and ran away from the place. The evidence of PW2, landlord, and PW4 the neighbour, also shows that on hearing the cries of PW1, they had rushed to the scene of the occurrence and found the appellant running away from the place. It is, therefore clear that the appellant and the deceased were alone inside the room where the deceased suffered burn injuries and there is no explanation by the appellant as to how the deceased suffered those injuries. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the deceased died of accidental burn injuries is to be stated only to be rejected. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the deceased died of accidental burn injuries is to be stated only to be rejected. The evidence of the doctor shows that the deceased suffered burn injuries on her upper part of the body and therefore it is clear that kerosene oil must have been poured over her head and thereafter she must have been set ablaze. If it was an accident, the doctor would have noticed injuries also on the lower part of the dead body of the deceased, but he did not find any such injuries on feet or lower part of the body of the deceased. In this background, it is worthwhile to remember at this stage the evidence of the witnesses to the effect that the appellant ran away from the place and did not offer any assistance to the deceased by taking her to the hospital for treatment. The conduct of the appellant in not giving any explanation to the PW1 and his conduct in running away from the place is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and coupled with the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 who are independent witnesses, we find that the appellant after setting her on fire ran away from the place of the occurrence. The evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 4 is strengthened by the statement of the deceased given to PW8 who is her brother. It is his evidence that he went to the hospital and found his sister lying with burn injuries and questioned, the deceased told him that her husband, the appellant had poured kerosene on her and then set her ablaze. The statement of the deceased, - which falls within the ambit of Section 32 of the Evidence Act as it is in the nature of a dying declaration,- also supports the prosecution case that the deceased was set on fire by the appellant. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. The I st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka will take all steps to commit the appellant to prison. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. The I st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka will take all steps to commit the appellant to prison. We, however, appreciate and put on record the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae during the course of the hearing of the appeal.