Jagdish Chandra, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict Jagdish alias Jaggi against the judgment of conviction and sentence both dated 12/3/1986 and passed by Shri P. S. Shanna, Add ). Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for that offence.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the appellant is that he was married to the injured Smt. Rani about eight years ago and had two daughters and two sons begotten to them out of this wedlock and they were all living together at House No. 16/445, Padam Singh Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi About 1 years after her marriage the injured Smt. Rani learntthat her husband (appellant) was keeping another woman as his mistress and whenever she protested to him on that count, he would maltreat her and even give her beatings often and was also not providing food to her for months and would also go away from the house to live with that other woman.

( 3 ) THE prosecution story further goes on to allege that on 5th January, 1984 at about 11 P. M. Smt. Rani served food to the appellant and after taking food when Smt. Rani sat to take food, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and set fire to her as a result of which she received burn injuries on her chest, and also tried to crush her fingers by putting them in the door forcibly. Smt. Rani extinguished the fire and went to the house of her father after two days of the occurrence and her father got her medically examined. The M. L. C. was prepared in Jai Prakash Narain Hospital, New Delhi, according to which Smt. Rani injured had received superficial burns on the front of the chest and both sides of the neck and she had gone there with the alleged history of her having been burnt by her husband at 9 P. M. on 5th January, 84 by pouring kerosene oil and then setting her on fire because of some family disputes. This M. L. C. further discloses that at that time she was conscious but drowsy looking very much pale and anacoated and also looking very much scared of the happening. Dehyderation was stated to be mild. This M. L. C. further shows that she was referred to the Senior Resident of burns and plastic on that very day for detailed examination and treatment. This M. L. C. did not then specify the nature of injuries, whether the same were simple, grievous or dangerous and thus remained content with describing the same as superficial. The prosecution story does not further reveal whether Smt. Rani went to the Senior Resident of Burns and Plastic or not for detailed examination and treatment.

( 4 ) THE accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed the trial and in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code), after denying the alleged occurrence at his hands, he asserted that it was a false case and that the witnesses were false and that his wife Smt. Rani and her father and others wanted to pressurise and harass him and had planted this case upon him falsely.

( 5 ) THE only eye witness in this case is Smt. Rani injured herself as Public Witness 5 whereas her father Bhola Singh P W2 has stated that her daughter Smt. Rani told him that the accused had set fire to her by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and that her husband was having another woman as a second wife and so had been giving beatings to her (Rani) and had set her on fire. He also stated that he had taken his daughter from the house of the accused/ appellant to lrwin Hospital and got her admitted there. Smt. Rani, however stated that after two days of the occurrence she went to the house of her father and her father got him medically examined and the police came to the hospital where her statement Ext. Public Witness 5/a was recorded. She supported the entire prosecution version.

( 6 ) DURING the course of arguments the following points were urged by Mr. Jagat Singh Advocate learned counsel for the convict

Click Here to Read the rest of this document