NISHA GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment dated 21.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui, Distt. Dausa in Sessions Case No. 47/2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC for simple life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on Parchabayan Ex.P/1 by Smt. Laxmi, FIR No. 99/2003 at Police Station Manpur has been registered for the offence under Section 302, 323 readwith 34 IPC. The substance of the information furnished to the police by Smt. Laxmi deceased is that on 30.3.2003 at about 5.30 PM, she was in agricultural field and she heard that a quarrel took place between the children and Satish, Bhagwati, Asha, Meera, Meena and Ashok are assaulting her son, daughter-in-law and grand-daughters. She came to the house, there Satish, the present appellant has poured kerosene with a bucket and lit the fire by match-stick. Kailash and Ramja have seen the incident. After usual investigation charge sheet has been filed against the present appellant which was committed to the Court for trial. Charges have been framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 323 and 323 readwith 34 IPC. The prosecution has examined PW.1 Pinky, PW.2 Maya, PW.3 Ramjilal, PW.4 Kailash, PW.5 Mohan Lal, PW.6 Dinesh Kumar, PW.7 Kamlesh, PW.8 Sardarsingh, PW.9 Kailash, PW.10 Shimbhoo, PW.11 Indraj Singh, PW.12 Jagdish Chandra, PW.13 Banwari Lal, PW.14 Dr. Umraosingh Meena, PW.15 Maliram, PW.16 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma and PW.17 Dr. P.K. Saini to support his case and also relied on documents Ex. P/1 to P/23. Statements of accused person has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No oral evidence has been produced by the defence and they have relied on Ex.D/1 to D/2. After conclusion of trial, the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as referred above, hence this appeal. The contention of the present appellant is that the whole story is concocted one just to falsely implicate the present appellant, the dying declaration is not reliable and trustworthy, in dying declaration four other persons have also been implicated out of them against three no charge-sheet has been filed and for other accused Ashok, dying declaration has not been relied upon hence the dying declaration is clearly found to be unreliable by the court below also; dying declaration has been recorded in violation of police rules; there is no evidence that at the time of deposition, the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement; Pinky (PW/1) has been wrongly shown as eye-witness. PW/5, Mohan Lal has stated that quarrel has taken place between the children in the morning whereas in dying declaration Ex.P/8, it has been stated that quarrel has taken place at the time of incident hence, there are material contradiction in the evidence and conviction is bad. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that prosecution has produced ample evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. He has been rightly convicted. There is no reason to disbelieve Parchabayan of the deceased. It has been corroborated by the evidence of PW/5 Mohan Lal and PW/1 Pinky. Both are family members of the deceased, their presence is natural at the house. Doctor has also stated that at the time of statement, the deceased was in a fit condition to depose. Doctor's signature has also been taken on the statement. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.;