JUDGMENT :

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The appellants in these appeals under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) have challenged the validity, legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23rd June, 2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, Distt. Korba in Sessions Trial No.35/2020 whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 6.5.2020 at around 10.00 pm the appellants went to the house of Prakash Paikra in drunken condition and enquired from his wife Usha Painkra about him, on which she told that he (Prakash Paikra) has gone to the house of her maternal grand-father. Thereafter, the appellants forcibly took her to garden, outraged her modesty and when she raised alarm, the appellants poured kerosene on her body, which was kept in her house, and set her ablaze. Thereafter, the appellants fled from the spot on motorcycle.

3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/3 and statements of Usha Paikra and her husband were recorded. Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur vide Ex.P/3 on 8.5.2020. However, she died on 10.5.2020 while undergoing treatment in hospital. Hence on the information being given by the ward boy of the hospital, Merg No.30/20 (Ex.P/21) was recorded. The dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Manoj Singh (PW-16) vide Ex.P/43 wherein he noticed multiple injuries on the body of the deceased, she was 60-61% burnt and the cause of her death was septic shock due to antemortem burn injuries and its complication. The appellants were arrested and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Exs.P/11, P/12 and P/13, pursuant to which one 5 liter plastic container and motorcycles were seized vide Exs.P/15, P/16 & P/17. Plain and bloodstained soil, the burnt hair and burnt clothes of the deceased and one matchbox containing 05 matchsticks were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P/14. After completing the usual formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 354, 302, 34 of IPC.

4. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/34 and 354/34 of IPC against the appellants, which were abjured by them and they pleaded for trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in their defence.

5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 23rd June, 2022 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence these appeals.

6. CRA No. 1219/2022 : Mr. Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel for appellant Pritam Kumar Paikra submits that conviction and sentence of the appellant are bad, improper, incorrect and contrary to the material on record. He has falsely been convicted without any basis in the present case. There is no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased and as such, no motive was there with the appellant to commit her murder. In Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/30), his name is written as xksiky daoj dk NksVk yM+d