Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1493 (RAJ)

Udaylal v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-08-04

FARJAND ALI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Farjand Ali, J. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 24.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Begun, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.91/2021, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 19.05.2017, a Parcha Bayan of complainant Smt. Fori Salvi was recorded at the Sanwaliya Ji Hospital, Chittorgarh to the effect that her marriage was earlier solemnized with one Dinesh Salvi about 10 years ago, but later on they got separated as per social customs and she was living at her parental house at Muroli. Around 3 years prior to the incident, her Nata marriage was solemnized with the present appellant Udailal Salvi, resident of Kherpura and since then she was residing at her matrimonial home. A male child named Vikas aged 2 years was begotten from this marriage. On the day of recording the Parcha Bayan, in the morning at about 09.30-10 am. she and her husband were at home. She wore a transparent stole. Her husband forbade her to wear such stole, upon which she wore another stole. Her husband poured on her kerosene lying in a half filled 5 liter container and set fire. On hearing her cries, her sister-in-law Mangi Bai came there and doused the fire. Her brother-in-law (sister's husband) Kalu also came and put out fire. She was taken to Parsoli Hospital, from where she was referred to Chittorgarh, where she was admitted in Trauma Ward. It was also stated that on that day, Gangoj ceremony was going on in their family at the house of Banshilal and Mandanlal. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR No.66/2017 was registered at the Police Station Parsoli and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, spot documents were prepared, burnt clothes of the victim were recovered, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC was submitted against the appellant. 4. During the course of investigation, spot documents were prepared, burnt clothes of the victim were recovered, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC was submitted against the appellant. 4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that the witnesses have given false statements due to grudge. He stated that he was not the perpetrator of the occurrence, rather the victim Fori herself poured kerosene on her person and set fire and he tried to save her, due to which he received burns on his hands. 2 documents were exhibited in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 24.09.2021, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to some grudge. It was the victim, who set herself on fire after pouring kerosene and the appellant tried to save her and in this process received burns on his hands, which is evident from his injury report (Ex.P/8). There is no eye-witness of the incident. Mangi Bai (P.W.3), who first reached at the spot, stated that the appellant was trying to put out fire. There are various contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the appeal and acquittal of the appellant. 6. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and as the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the appellant by producing cogent and clinching evidence, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for in this appeal. 7. 6. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and as the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the appellant by producing cogent and clinching evidence, no interference in the impugned judgment is called for in this appeal. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by leaned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record of the case. 8. The victim Fori, who was examined as P.W.2, has narrated the entire incident in detail, in which being agitated on a trivial issue of wearing transparent stole, her husband poured kerosene on her and set fire. Her sister-in-law Mangi Bai (P.W.3) extinguished the fire and saved her and her brother-in-laws Kalulal and Kheerchand took him to the hospital. She refuted the claim of the defence that the appellant Udailal tried to save her. The statement of Mangi Bai, corroborates the story narrated by the victim and also establishes the presence of the accused at the spot. Kalulal (P.W.1), who took the victim to the hospital stated that the victim told him the same description of the incident. Nothing significant was elicited from the cross-examination of these witnesses. Kheerchand (P.W.4), who also accompanied the victim to the hospital, supported the prosecution case. Shyamlal (P.W.5) stated that the accused fled from the spot due to fear of beating. One important piece of prosecution evidence is the testimony of Dr. Sanjay Pareek (P.W.13), who on requisition of the police, examined the victim and prepared injury report (Ex.P/5), wherein he noted that the injuries were caused due to dry heat flame burn. He further noted that smell of kerosene was emanating from the body and the extent of burn was 37-40% and one-third part of the body was burnt. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries suffered by the victim were dangerous to life. The Investigating Officer Prem Singh (P.W.14) stated the steps of investigation till filing of challah. The defence has not been able to point out any noteworthy loophole in the investigation procedure. The learned trial court did not believe the defence theory that it was rather the complainant herself who set her to fire after pouring kerosene and the accused tried to save her. The defence has not been able to point out any noteworthy loophole in the investigation procedure. The learned trial court did not believe the defence theory that it was rather the complainant herself who set her to fire after pouring kerosene and the accused tried to save her. The learned trial court based on the evidence placed on record arrived at a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of the incident, in which the accused-appellant poured kerosene on the victim and set her on fire, thus, causing injuries which were opined by the medical jurist to be dangerous to life. Thus, the learned trial court concluded that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is proved against the appellant and accordingly, he was convicted for the said offence. 9. Upon thoughtful consideration, this court is of the opinion that though there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, but a careful scrutiny of the same does not give rise to any suspicion over their truthfulness specially when the same is further corroborated by other material available on record including the injury report. In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The learned trial court has prudently discussed the entire evidence in detail and based upon thorough appreciation of the same has reached to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. I find no error, irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. 10. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, this court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has already adopted a liberal approach while sentencing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 years, when the maximum punishment provided for the offence committed by him is 10 years. Thus, the appellant does not deserve any further leniency. 11. It is revealing from the record that the appellant in custody since the date of his arrest on 26.05.2017, thus, apparently he has served the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Thus, the appellant does not deserve any further leniency. 11. It is revealing from the record that the appellant in custody since the date of his arrest on 26.05.2017, thus, apparently he has served the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Thus, it is ordered that if the appellant is still in jail, the period of sentence served by him shall be computed and if he has actually completed the term of imprisonment and he is not wanted in any other case, he shall be released forthwith from the prison. 12. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 13. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.