RAMBAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-48
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CHHATTISGARH)
Decided on
October 04,2002
RAMBAI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LAXMI VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]LAXMAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
EBY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-4-52] [REFERRED TO]BRIJLAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
MEETHA RAM VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-4-91] [REFERRED TO]
JASVIR KAUR ALIAS GIANO VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
ARIFBHAI MOHAMMEDBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
NAUSAD AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-143] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMEJ SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2004-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER KAUSHIK & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-711] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY MALKHED POLICE STATION VS. MEHBOOBMIYA S/O CHUNNUMIYA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-11-235] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-179] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI S D KALDATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. SAHAB SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
RAMROOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-122] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO DASHRATH SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
BIR SINGH VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-8-109] [REFERRED TO]
P V RADHAKRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2003-7-103] [REFERRED]
MAHADEVA @ MAHADEVANAYAKA S/O KALANAYAKA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-4-419] [REFERRED TO]
IDLA S/O RUPSINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2004-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
CHACKO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2002-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU KUTTY VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2004-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIYA SULTHANA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-559] [REFERRED TO]
HANUMANTHARAYUDU VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
NAGORAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-172] [REFERRED TO]
LATOOR SINGH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
SAMMI & ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-351] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER KAUSHIK AND ORS. VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-241] [REFERRED TO]
SATHISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
RIAZUL HUSSAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
KALIA BHUYAN ALIAS BIKASH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-4-15] [FOLLOWED ON]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-196] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTU KUMAR @CHHOTU PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
G LINGASWAMY VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN MAHANTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAWATI DEVI & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-390] [REFERRED]
SOMOTI AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. DAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND BRAHMIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-381] [REFERRED TO]
JEJABRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2005-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK DAS ALIAS BAIDYA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2011-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
MONI MAZUMDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
SAMANTBHAI NANABHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
HASANBANU SAHIDBHAI KURESHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-7-365] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR BHAURAO SOLANKHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
SWARNA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-115] [REFERRED TO]
BRAJESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. OKHA BHARTI [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAMJAN KHAN SON OF SHRI BHERU KHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-3-115] [REFERRED TO]
RUKSANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR KURMI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(CHH)-2013-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
DURGESH SINGH BHADAURIA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPHAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-184] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA SAHA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
HONNURI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Santosh Hegde, J. -
(1.)Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature Chhattisgarh made in Criminal Appeal No. 1873 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 412 of 1998 the appellant has preferred this appeal before us.
(2.)Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : That the appellant and deceased Vidya Bai who is her sister-in-law used to have frequent quarrels. Consequent to which it is stated on 8th of October, 1998 at about 2.30 p.m. the appellant poured kerosene oil on Vidya Bai and burnt her. It is the prosecution case that Vidya Bai on being so burnt ran out of the house when her husband Balram came to her rescue and tried to extinguish the fire, in this process it is stated even he suffered some burn injuries on his hands. Thereafter, it is the prosecution case that Vidya Bai was taken to the hospital where PW.17, Dr. Kiran Aggrawal examined her injuries and found that Vidya Bai suffered almost about 85% burns on her body. Though the police were informed of this incident, they were unable to record any statement of Vidya Bai since she was not in a position to do so. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12-10-1998 when she regained consciousness a statement was recorded as per Ex. P/9 by PW.11, G. S. Gaharwar which was treated as the first information for registering a crime. It is also stated that on the very same day as per Ex. D/4 the said witness PW.11 also recorded another dying declaration. It is the further case of the prosecution that later in the evening of 12th October, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. on a request made by the police to the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration of Vidya Bai, PW.12, K. K. Bakshi, came to the hospital and recorded Ex. P/11 another dying declaration of the said Vidya Bai. It is also on the record that said Vidya Bai died around 4.30 a.m. on 13th October, 1998, therefore, a case which had originally registered under Section 307, IPC was re-registered under Section 302, IPC. The appellant who was arrested under Section 307, IPC and thereafter was charged under Section 302, IPC and was tried for the said offence.
(3.)The prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses, while defence in support of its case examined three witnesses. In her 313, Cr.P.C. Statement the appellant took the specific defence that at the time of the mishap she was preparing incense sticks and came to know about burns suffered by the deceased she also went to extinguish the fire and she had not poured any kerosene oil and set Vidya Bai on fire. She also contended that at the instance of the mother of the deceased in her dying declaration deceased had falsely implicated her.
(2.)Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows : That the appellant and deceased Vidya Bai who is her sister-in-law used to have frequent quarrels. Consequent to which it is stated on 8th of October, 1998 at about 2.30 p.m. the appellant poured kerosene oil on Vidya Bai and burnt her. It is the prosecution case that Vidya Bai on being so burnt ran out of the house when her husband Balram came to her rescue and tried to extinguish the fire, in this process it is stated even he suffered some burn injuries on his hands. Thereafter, it is the prosecution case that Vidya Bai was taken to the hospital where PW.17, Dr. Kiran Aggrawal examined her injuries and found that Vidya Bai suffered almost about 85% burns on her body. Though the police were informed of this incident, they were unable to record any statement of Vidya Bai since she was not in a position to do so. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 12-10-1998 when she regained consciousness a statement was recorded as per Ex. P/9 by PW.11, G. S. Gaharwar which was treated as the first information for registering a crime. It is also stated that on the very same day as per Ex. D/4 the said witness PW.11 also recorded another dying declaration. It is the further case of the prosecution that later in the evening of 12th October, 1998 at about 4.30 p.m. on a request made by the police to the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration of Vidya Bai, PW.12, K. K. Bakshi, came to the hospital and recorded Ex. P/11 another dying declaration of the said Vidya Bai. It is also on the record that said Vidya Bai died around 4.30 a.m. on 13th October, 1998, therefore, a case which had originally registered under Section 307, IPC was re-registered under Section 302, IPC. The appellant who was arrested under Section 307, IPC and thereafter was charged under Section 302, IPC and was tried for the said offence.
(3.)The prosecution in support of its case examined 19 witnesses, while defence in support of its case examined three witnesses. In her 313, Cr.P.C. Statement the appellant took the specific defence that at the time of the mishap she was preparing incense sticks and came to know about burns suffered by the deceased she also went to extinguish the fire and she had not poured any kerosene oil and set Vidya Bai on fire. She also contended that at the instance of the mother of the deceased in her dying declaration deceased had falsely implicated her.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.