K.J.THAKER - (1.) THE appellant-convict has preferred this appeal assailing the judgement and order dated 29.11.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2005 whereby the appellant- convict has been convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
(2.) THE appellant had filed this appeal through jail and had sought for assistance from legal aid authority. Accordingly, Ms. Nisha Parikh, learned advocate has been appointed as advocate for the appellant. The charge levelled against the accused vide Ex. 3 reads that on 29.04.2004, when the appellant-convict was at his house, at around 08.00 pm his wife reached home. After his wife reached home, he picked up a quarrel by asking her as to why did she roam here and there and accused her of not being of good moral character. When she retorted to his accusations, he got angry and immediately grabbed a can of petrol and poured it over her and thereafter set her on fire by igniting match-stick. He ran away from the scene of incident. His wife was later on admitted to SSG hospital where she succumbed to burn injuries. 3.1 After completing usual investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused for the offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.2 The trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses as oral evidences: (i) Sugrabibi Luhar Ex. 07 (ii)Ganibhai Luhar Ex. 08 (iii)Abidabibi Vaghela Ex. 09 (iv)Irfan Abdul Vora Ex. 10 (v)Dr. Riteshkumar Parmar Ex. 11 (vi)Dr. Kishorebhai Desai Ex. 13 (vii)Gajanandbhai Prajapati Ex. 17 (viii)Siddhrajsinh Sultansinh Ex. 21 (ix)Jhaverbhai Ambalal Ex. 26 (x)Mahesh Chhabildas Champaneria Ex. 29 (xi)Salman Gulamnabi Ex. 33 (xii)Rabiyabibi Diwan Ex. 34 (xiii)Ruksanaben Shaikh Ex. 35 (xiv)Mohammadhanif Mohd. Usman Ex. 37 (xv)Moiuddin Ismailbhai Shaikh Ex. 39 (xvi)Mohansinh Baria Ex. 40 (xvii)Dr. Tusharbhai Prajapati Ex. 42 (xviii)Bhagirathsinh Jadeja Ex. 45 3.3 The prosecution also produced the following documentary evidence in support of its case: (i) Yadi for conducting P.M. Ex. 14 (ii) Police Report Ex. 15 (iii) P.M. Report Ex. 15 (iv) Yadi for recording D.D Ex. 18 (v) Dying Declaration Ex. 19 (vi) Hospital Vardhi Ex. 22 (vii) Yadi for registering offence Ex. 24 (viii) Receipt of mudddamal Ex. 31 (ix) FSL Report with forwarding letter Ex. 32 (x) Inquest Panchnama Ex. 36 (xi) Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 38 (xii) Complaint Ex. 41 (xiii) Muddamal despatch note Ex. 46 3.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
(3.) MS . Nisha Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant-convict beyond reasonable doubt. She contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the intention and motive of the accused to set the deceased on fire beyond reasonable doubt. 4.1 Ms. Parikh further submitted that three witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. She has submitted that the appellant was not present at his house when the incident occurred and that in fact he was informed by the neighbours when he returned home that his wife had burnt to death. She submitted that the entire house was on fire and therefore the death of the deceased cannot be said to be homicidal but in fact was an accident. She also submitted that the arrest panchnama is not produced on record and therefore the prosecution story seems to be doubtful. ;