Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 274 (MP)

RATIRAM ALIAS CHUDWA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-02-26

K.S.CHAUHAN, RAKESH SAKSENA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 16/09/1998 passed by the 8th additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S. T. No. 247/1998, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal code and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R. I. for one year. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case in short is that on 11. 04. 1998 at 9. 40 a. m. Pulichand (PW-1) informed at Police Station Kundam that Pusia Bai wife of Ratiram has been burnt by her husband. This information was jotted down in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 380. On this information nekram Tiwari (PW-11) reached at village Badhua and saw that the body of Pusia Bai was burnt she was speaking. She lodged Dehati nalshi Ex. P-10 wherein it was mentioned that her husband Ratiram came at night and demanded food. She said that she is tired hence he should take food himself. Her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. She tried to run away but her husband caught her on account of which he was also burnt. The crime No. 37/98 under Section 307 of I. P. C. was registered against the appellant. Pusia Bai was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr. K. C. Singhai (PW-8 ). He found burn injuries on her person. Her dying declaration was recorded by P. C. Daharia (PW-10) Naib Tahsildar, Kundam. She was sent to Victoria Hospital Jabalpur but she was not admitted there and sent to Medical Hospital Jabalpur where she died on the next day. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. A. K. Yadu (PW-6 ). According to his opinion the death was caused due to shock from burn. After the death of Pusia Bai the offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. was added. Kerosene containers, chimney, burnt clothes and earth soil containing kerosene were seized from the spot. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to F. S. L. Sagar. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. After the death of Pusia Bai the offence under Section 302 of I. P. C. was added. Kerosene containers, chimney, burnt clothes and earth soil containing kerosene were seized from the spot. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to F. S. L. Sagar. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. After completing the usual investigation chargesheet was filed under Section 302 of I. P. C. in the court of J. M. F. C. , Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions court for trial. ( 3. ) APPELLANT was charged under Section 302 of I. P. C. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and placed 14 documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-14 on record. Appellant did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment finding and sentence passed by the trial Court the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 4. ) MS. Vijay Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 5. ) ON the contrary, Shri S. K. Rai, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent/state submitted that the appellant poured kerosene over the body of deceased and set her on fire. His intention was to kill Pusia Bai. Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It does not call for any interference, hence, appeal be dismissed. ( 6. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of I. P. C? ( 7. ) NEKRAM Tiwari (PW-11) has recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-10 lodged by Pusia Bai wherein it was mentioned that appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. After the death of Pusia Bai this Dehati nalishi Ex. P-10 became her dying declaration. ( 7. ) NEKRAM Tiwari (PW-11) has recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-10 lodged by Pusia Bai wherein it was mentioned that appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. After the death of Pusia Bai this Dehati nalishi Ex. P-10 became her dying declaration. Nothing has been brought in cross-examination of this witness as to rebut his evidence on this point. ( 8. ) P. C. Daharia (PW-10) who was Naib Tahsildar at Kundam recorded her dying declaration Ex. P-7. He obtained certificate from concerned doctor regarding the fact that Pusia Bai was able to give statement and she was fully conscious. Dr. K. C. Singhai (PW-8) has also supported this fact that Pusia Bai was conscious and was in a position to give dying declaration. The recording of dying declaration was started at 11. 45 a. m. and completed at 12. 10 p. m. Dr. K. C. Singhai (PW-8) remained present through the period of recording dying declaration. ( 9. ) P. C. Daharia (PW-10) has deposed that he recorded dying declaration in question and answer form. Her thumb impression was also obtained on this dying declaration. ( 10. ) ON perusal of dying declaration Ex. P-7 it is evident that her husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. Nothing has been carved out in cross-examination of this witness P. C. Daharia (PW-10)as to discredit his testimony. The evidence of this witness is reliable. ( 11. ) IT is also born out from the record that Pusia Bai also gave oral dying declaration to Pulichand (PW-1), Maiki Bai (PW-3), Summat singh (PW-4) and Doop Singh (PW-7 ). Out of them Maiki Bai (PW-3) is the daughter of deceased. She has deposed that after hearing the cries of her mother she went there and saw that her mother was burnt. She asked as to how she was burnt? She stated that appellant Ratiram has burnt her after pouring the kerosene. Pulichand (PW-1) has stated that Antalal son of appellant Ratiram told him regarding burning of his mother Pusia Bai, therefore, he met with Pusia Bai who told him that appellant Ratiram has poured kerosene and set her on fire. ( 12. ) THUS, all these witnesses gave the similar evidence that Pusia bai told them that appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. Some minor discrepancies are there but they are of no consequence. ( 13. ( 12. ) THUS, all these witnesses gave the similar evidence that Pusia bai told them that appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. Some minor discrepancies are there but they are of no consequence. ( 13. ) THUS, it is established that Pusia Bai gave the oral as well as written dying declaration wherein she has clearly stated that it was the appellant who poured kerosene and set her on fire. The report was promptly lodged. She was immediately sent for medical examination. Dr. K. C. Singhai (PW-8) examined her and found burns over her entire body. The percentage of burns was about 100%. The smell of kerosene was coming from her body. He has given the medical report ex. P-6. Thus, immediately after the incident in medical examination burn injuries were found on her body. She was admitted in government Hospital, Jabalpur where she died on 12. 04. 1998 at 4. 25 p. m. Postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. A. K. Yadu (PW-6) who opined that the cause of death was shock from burn. The time of death was within 24 hours. P. M. report is Ex. P-4, which contains his signature. Thus, it is established that Pusia Bai died on account of burn injuries caused to her. ( 14. ) IT is also born out from the record that appellant was not having good relations with his wife. It is reflected from statement of pulichand (PW-1) that Panchayat was conveyed to resolve the dispute in between them. This appellant said in that Panchayat that Antalal (PW-3) is not his son. It indicates that appellant was suspecting character of his wife Pusia Bai and was of the view that Antalal is not his son. It is also reflected from evidence that his son, daughter and other relatives were not residing with him. It clearly indicates that there was rift in the family and this relations were tense with his wife. He himself has admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. that the dispute was going on with his wife. They were not in the talkative terms. ( 15. ) THUS the prosecution has tried to establish motive behind commission of this crime. ( 16. ) THE appellant has taken very inconsistent plea of his defence. On one side he has stated that Pusia Bai herself poured kerosene over both of them. They were not in the talkative terms. ( 15. ) THUS the prosecution has tried to establish motive behind commission of this crime. ( 16. ) THE appellant has taken very inconsistent plea of his defence. On one side he has stated that Pusia Bai herself poured kerosene over both of them. On the other hand the defence is that kerosene was poured accidentally over them. Both pleas are not plausible or possible. From the dying declaration given by Pusia Bai it has been established that it was appellant who poured kerosene and set her on fire. Thus the defence version is not acceptable and hence trial Court has rightly rejected so. ( 17. ) BY closely scrutinizing the evidence adduced in this case, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court has rightly found him guilty under Section 302 of I. P. C. There is no illegality, infirmity, impropriety and perversity in such finding we affirm the same. This appeal is devoid of substance hence deserves to be dismissed. ( 18. ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are hereby maintained.