IMPORTANT POINT
Where from evidence on record it could not be said that the appellant had the intention that such action on her part would cause the death or such bodily injury to the deceased, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, case could not be said to be covered under clause (4) of Section 300 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat holding that the case of the appellant herein is covered under Clause (4) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and, consequent thereto convicting her under Section 302 of IPC for murder of her daughter-in-law -Santokben alias Muktaben and sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life. However, by the said order, imposition of the fine of Rs. 3,000/- by the Sessions Court was set aside. Earlier the Sessions Court held the appellant guilty for the offence of Section 304, Part II of IPC and convicted and sentenced her for 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in lieu to undergo further imprisonment of one year.

2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the parties and issues involved, it would be necessary to set out brief facts of the case which gave rise to the present criminal appeal.

Deceased Santokben was married to Parshottambhai Patel of village Jamvadi, Taluka Gondal, District Rajkot. After the marriage she gave birth to three children, who were all girls. The appellant herein, who is the mother-in-law of Santokben, was dissatisfied with Santokben because she was not able to bear a boy. According to prosecution on 29.11.1984 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased with her youngest daughter Minaxi had gone to fetch water and while she was returning with water pot on her head and carrying Minaxi with the other hand, the appellant came and threw a burning wick made of rags on the deceased and thereby set fire to the terylene clothes put on by the deceased. The deceased brought down her minor daughter whom she was carrying and managed to reach her house with the burn injuries.

3. After reaching her house the deceased summoned her daughter Nita who had gone to attend her school. Nita in turn informed witness Babulal Liladhar and the deceased was taken to Gondal Government dispensary at about 9.35 a.m. At Gondal Government dispensary the deceased was examined by Dr. Hareshkumar N. Savaliya, who was a Medical Officer at the said dispensary and on finding that the deceased has sustained more than 60% burns, he advised the persons accompanying her to remove her to Rajkot Hospital. At about 11.00 a.m. on that day an information was conveyed by Mr. Ghanshyambhai, who was police constable on duty at Gondal hospital, to Umiyashanker Jivram, P.S.O. at Gondal Taluka Police Station about the deceased having been admitted in the hospital for treatment of her burn injuries. Mr. Umiyashanker had in turn asked Jamadar Sultan Siddi at about 11.00 a.m. to go to the dispensary and record the complaint. Accordingly, Jamadar Sultan Siddi went to the Gondal hospital and recorded the complaint of the deceased at about 12.45 p.m., which is the First Information Report. After reducing the complaint/FIR of the deceased into writing, he obtained the thumb impression of the deceased thereon (Exhibit 46). Meanwhile at about 11.20 a.m. witness D.P. Trivedi, who was on duty at that time as Deputy Mamlatdar sent a report to Executive Magistrate that the deceased was admitted to hospital with burn injuries and he should record her dying declaration. Accordingly, Mr. D.P. Trivedi, Executive Magistrate had gone to Gondal Hospital and after verifying from Dr. Savaliya that deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to make statement, recorded her dying declaration. Thereafter, the deceased was removed to Rajkot Government hospital. During the course of treatment the deceased died on 07.12.1984. At the instance of Head Constable C.D. Vyas, Dr. Tarlikaben H. Shah performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Necessary investigation into the case was made by Mr. L.S. Chavda, P.S.I., of Gondal Taluka, Police Station. Mr. Vijay J. Menad, who was then appointed as probationer P.S.I, assisted Mr. Chavad.

4. After conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sh