IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that an act causing bodily injury likely to cause death, but without the intention of causing death, falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1) of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. Heard Ms. Alka Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha for the State.

2. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year by the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.01.2015 and 30.01.2015 respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 340/2010, 90/2013 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge III, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

3. The Trial Court has directed that the fine so realized from the appellant shall be given to the minor daughter of the deceased.

4. The appellant is the husband of the deceased who is alleged to have poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire for having demanded her share of money from the sale-proceeds of the family land. The occurrence of burning took place on 05.05.2010, but the deceased died on 08.05.2010.

5. The prosecution story unfolds in the FIR lodged by the younger brother of the deceased viz. Rajnath Paswan, who has been examined as P.W. 6 at the trial. The FIR was lodged on 08.05.2010 with the disclosure that at about 9:00 A.M. on the same day, he telephonically learnt that his elder sister aged about 40 years has died because of burning. On such information, he along with his villagers Ramdeo Yadav, Mithilesh Pandey (P.W. 4), Babu Lal Yadav, Ramashish Yadav (P.W. 2) and his mother Manjhari Kunwar (P.W. 1) went to the matrimonial home of his sister, only to find her dead in the courtyard. His niece Soni Kumari (aged 10 Years)/P.W. 5 was weeping near the dead body. On being questioned, she told the informant that about 4-5 days before, the father-in-law of the deceased Ramadhar Paswan had sold family land and there was some dispute between aforenoted Ramadhar Paswan and his two sons, the one being the appellant, for apportionment of the sale-proceeds. While heated discussions were going on between Ramadhar Paswan and his two sons, the deceased intervened and stopped her husband/appellant from fighting. Thereafter she came back home when she was assaulted by the appellant and his brother whereafter kerosene oil was poured on her and fire was lit which ultimately led to her death. The appellant, according to the information learnt by P.W. 6, ran away. The deceased was not taken to hospital for treatment but locally she was treated with emollient cream etc. When she died, the information was provided to P.W. 6.

6. On the basis of the aforenoted disclosure, Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 148/2010 dated 08.05.2010 was registered for investigation against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The Police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Courts of Sessions for trial.

7. The Trial Court after examining eight witnesses on behalf the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the main witness of the case is Soni Kumari (P.W. 6), the daughter of the deceased, who was only 10 years old when the occurrence had taken place and 14 years of age when she had deposed before the Court but her statement, even if believed, does reflect that there was any intention of the appellant to kill the deceased.

9. It has further been urged on behalf of the appellant that with the non-examination of the Investigating Officer of this case, the appellant stood severely prejudiced as no attention could be drawn to the earlier statements made in that regard by the witnesses during the trial. The further line of the argument is that if there was a dispute for distribution of the sale-proceeds of the family land, there was no reason for the appellant to have killed his wife as the appellant and his brother were also demanding their share from their father.

10. Assuming the statement of Soni Kumari/P.W. 5 to be true, she had