Judgment

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- This is an appeal under Art. 134(1)(a) of the Constitution from a Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court given on 20 November, 1985. Lichhamadevi the appellant was tried for an offence under S. 302, IPC for the murder of her daughter-in-law. She was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur city. Upon appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal and sentenced her to death.

2. The prosecution story of the case may now be briefly stated : Pushpa was the daughter of Sita Ram (PW 9). She was married to Jagdish Prasad. On 29 January, 1977, she was found with flames in the kitchen. Upon hearing her pathetic cries, the neighbours rushed, but not her relatives in the house. The neighbours took her to the hospital where she died the next day. It is said that the relations between Pushpa and her mother-in-law (the appellant) had become strained on account of unsatisfied dowry demand. Overbearing mother-in-law appears to be the master of the house. She used to harass Pushpa quite often. To avoid harassment, Pushpa left her husbands house and remained with her parents. About 4-5 days before the incident she returned to her in-laws house. On 29 January, 1977, at about 4-5 p.m. Pushpa was cleaning utensils on the roof of the house. It is said that the appellant lifted one bhagone (Pan) and struck over the forehead of Pushpa causing injury and expressing at the same time that she felt like burning her alive. In the same night at about 8 Oclock the neighbours saw the flames coming out of tin-shed which was used as kitchen of the house. People also heard a cry bachao-bachao. Bhanwarlal (PW-3) who was the next neighbour shouted and attracted others who all rushed and found that the doors of the kitchen were closed with an iron chain fastened from outside. Fumes and fire were billowing out of the kitchen. Din Dayal (PW4), Lalit Kishore (PW 5) and Sushil Kumar (PW 6) tried to enter the room. One of them removed the iron chain and opened the door. They found a woman in flames. They took her outside and found that she was Pushpa. She needed urgent medical attention. They called the appellant and Jagdish but they refused to associate themselves. Thereupon, Lalit Kishore took Pushpa to Swami Man Singh Hospital and got her admitted in an emergency ward.

3. Dr. Goel (PW 1), who admitted Pushpa in the hospital found that Pushpa was in a critical condition. The Doctor advised that she needed blood transfusion. Lalit Kishore returned home and conveyed to the inmates what the Doctor said. The appellant came out with her barbaric attitude and appears to have told Jagdish not to arrange blood to Pushpa. Pushpa breathed her last at about 10 a.m. on the next day.

4. Pushpa, before her death, was said to have stated at about 5.30 am. that her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set fire. It was recorded as Ex.P. 52 by Sop Singh (PW 14) and attested by two other witnesses. Similar statements were also alleged to have been made by Pushpa to her father and to Dr. Goel.

5. Dr. Goel conducted the post-mortem examination and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased :

"1st, 2nd and 3rd degree superficial burns with line of redness and blackening of skin, signing of the fairs, peeling of the superficial skin involving scalp, face, both upper extremities, neck, chest front, and back of chest, abdomen, back both lower extremities."

6. According to the Doctor, all the burns were ante-mortem in nature. He has opined that the cause of death was severe burns, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

7. There are some disturbing features in this case which we must mention before examining the merits of the matter. The investigation in this case did not proceed as it ought to and there appears to be soft pedalling of the whole case. During investigation the appellant herself has stated that her son Madan might have burnt Pushpa. He is the elder brother of Jagadish. Madan was also