Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned AGA and have taken through the record.
(2.) THE instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 2, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 344 of 1997 under Sections 304 IPC whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced for ten years rigorous with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default, he had to undergo six months further imprisonment. According to the prosecution version, a first information report was lodged against the Appellant with the allegation that the Appellant has thrown burning stick on Smt. Tara Devi after sprinkling some explosive substance, as a result of which victim sustained serious burn injuries. On the shriek and alarm of the victim, Vijai Shanker Pandey the neighbour of the victim ran and saw the accused Appellant fleeing away taking a bottle in his hand. The victim was hospitalized in the District Hospital. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded in the hospital by the Magistrate. The victim was shifted to Bombay for treatment where she succumbed to injuries.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the entire prosecution story is based on suspicion. None had seen the occurrence. The complainant was already nurturing grudge and animus against the Appellant and had named the Appellant in the first information report. The dying declaration of the victim is very cryptic. The dying declaration of the victim was recorded next day which creates doubt about its veracity. The Appellant is languishing in jail since the date of conviction. The prosecution has failed to bring on record the post mortem report of the victim as to whether the victim had succumbed to injury or is hidden somewhere in a mysterious circumstances. The Appellant was on bail during trial. He has not misused the liberty of the bail. The appeal is not likely to be heard in near future.;