RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE homicidal death of Suman Bai within four years of her marriage, the existence of two dying declarations, the conviction of the appellant, vide judgment dated 20. 8. 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (Fast Track) Kota, has brought the appellant before this Court. THE learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and has sentenced him to life imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of fifteen days in default thereof.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that on 7. 3. 2004 at 2:35 AM, the Assistant Sub-INspector, Babulal (PW. 5) recorded the statement of deceased Suman Bai in the Burn-Ward of MBS Hospital, Kota. IN her statement, she claimed that "about four years ago, she had a court marriage with the appellant. On 6. 3. 2004, around 7'o clock, the appellant came her and demanded some money in order to go and see a movie. Since she did not have any money, she refused to give him any money. Suddenly, the appellant started beating her with fist and kicks and picked up a kerosene can and poured it over her. He immediately lit a match and ignited her. She shouted for help whereupon Prem Chand and other neighbours rushed inside the room. " On the basis of this statement, initially the police recorded a formal FIR, FIR No. 99/04, for offence under Section 307 IPC. However, subsequently upon the death of Suman Bai, the offence was converted from one under Section 307 to under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested. IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses and submitted number of documents. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this jail appeal before this Court.

(3.) A holistic appreciation of the evidence available on record reveals that according to Prem Chand (PW. 1) and according to the appellant's statement given under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , both of them were watching TV when they heard the hue and cry of the deceased, Suman Bai. Both of them rushed into the room and tried to douse the flames and to rescue the deceased. In that process, both of them received injuries on their bodies. According to the arrest memo (Ex. P. 11), at the time of his arrest, the appellant had burnt injuries below the knee of his right leg, on his left hand and on his face. According to the Investigating Officer, Babulal (PW. 5), the appellant was hospitalized for two to three days after the alleged incident. Considering this evidence and considering the dying declarations which co-exist a strong possibility does exist that the appellant under the influence of liquor, in an inebriated condition, demanded for money from his wife and when she refused, in a sudden loss of temper, the appellant poured the kerosene and tried to burn her. However, once the flames lept in the air, he tried his level best to save the wife. Thus, the appellant did not intend to cause the injuries to the deceased by which she subsequently died.