Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - The accused's conduct fell within Exception 4, as the court found that the incident was a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation or undue advantage.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short), is preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2018 and 27.12.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 49 (J-J))/2013, convicting Satish Telenga (hereinafter, referred to as the accused), under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded from the FIR is that Nomi Robidas (hereinafter, also referred to as ‘the victim’ or ‘the deceased’) got acquainted with the accused, who indulged in a relationship outside marriage with the deceased and used to visit her in her staff quarter. He induced the victim to such a relationship by promising to marry her and he also at times, used to stay with the victim in her staff quarter. The victim was blessed with a daughter. The child was 3 years old at the time of the incident. The victim informed her mother that the accused used to drink and gamble frequently and used to demand money from her and he also used to subject her to cruelty. On 26.01.2023, at about 02:00 pm, the accused doused the victim with kerosene and set her ablaze. The victim was taken for medical treatment, but she passed away on 07.02.2013. On learning about this incident from the neighbours, the victim’s mother lodged an FIR, which was registered as Pulibor PS Case No. 83/2013, under Section 304-B IPC.

3. The Investigating Officer (IO, in short), embarked upon the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map. He made preparations for inquest and forwarded the body for autopsy. He recorded the statements of witnesses. On finding prima facie materials against the accused, the IO submitted charge sheet against him under Section 304-B IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished and the case was committed for trial.

4. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Sections 302/306 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To connect the accused to the crime, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 12 witnesses, including the Medical Officer (‘MO’, in short). The defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. To the incriminating circumstances projected through the evidence, several questions were asked to the accused under Section 313 CrPC and his responses were recorded. The tenor of the answers to the questions put to the accused, depicts a plea of total denial. He stated that PW-2 deposed falsely against him. He denied of having locked the door as alleged by PW-2. He vehemently denied that he set ablaze his wife.

6. Learned counsel for the accused laid stress in her argument that benefit of doubt goes to the accused as the FIR was lodged a month after the alleged incident. The evidence of the witnesses depicts that the victim was able to speak after the incident, but no dying declaration was recorded. No mens rea could be attributed to the accused to kill his wife. The victim died after eleven or twelve days, but the prosecution failed to record the dying declaration of the victim. The accused cannot be held guilty of murder because the evidence of PW-4 does not at all implicate that his mother (deceased) had specifically alleged that the accused set her ablaze. The victim's last statement was-“Why did you do so?” This statement cannot be conjectured as an allegation that the victim had incriminated that the accused had doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze. The accused had also sustained burn injuries while trying to save his wife and this reveals that he had no intention to eliminate his wife. PWs-3, 4, 6 and 7 are all related witnesses and they have exaggerated the entire incident. The cross examination of the witnesses Basudev, Debansh (PW-3) a