2015 Supreme(Raj) 1077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Govind Mathur & Jaishree Thakur, JJ.
Banshi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 101 of 2009
Decided On : 04-09-2015
For the Appellant : Kaluram Bhati
For the Respondent: C.S. Ojha
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32 Appeal filed against the order of conviction for murder of daughter by the appellant accused – Held that the dying declarations which are submitted in two different exhibit documents do not match and that both are contrasting – Conviction order set aside – appeal is permitted.
Govind Mathur, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.12.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.7/2008, recording conviction and awarding sentence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that in the night of 8.10.2007, a young girl of about 14 years seriously burnt was brought to Sanwaria General Hospital, Chittorgarh and while undergoing treatment, at 09:45 PM a statement given by her, was reduced in writing as per document Ex.P/35 by Shri Darshan Singh, Sub Inspector, Police Station, Chittorgarh. The Sub Inspector while reducing the statement of the girl in writing obtained a fitness certificate from the treating doctor Shri Dinesh Kathed (PW-10) on the same paper leaf on which the statement was drawn. The girl disclosed her name as Pooja, aged 14 years, daughter of Shri Banshilal, resident of Kachi Basti, Senti, behind Seeds Godown, Chittorgarh. Kumari Pooja stated that on the same day at 09:00 PM she was cooking food on stove. At that time her father Shri Banshilal came under intoxication and started abusing her. He then poured kerosene on her from a jericane already available in the room and that caught fire from the stove resulting into serious burns.
3. On basis of this statement, a case was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation a dying declaration (Ex.P/13) of Kumari Pooja was recorded by Shri Paras Kumar Jain (PW-11), Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate before recording statement obtained a fitness certificate from treating doctor Shri Dinesh Kathed in the terms that "Pt. is fit to give statement". The dying declaration made by Kumari Pooja reads as under:-
"My name is Pooja. My father's name is Banshilal. We live in a Kachi Basti, Senti, behind Seeds Godown. In the evening at 07:00 PM, father came under intoxication. I was at the house of Ismile Khan, our neighbour. My father brought me to home and asked to cook food, but subsequently refused for that. He poured kerosene on me from stove and then put me in fire. I ran out from the room, but I do not know who poured water on him. I am not married. I do not know where is my father. I am not having mother".
(English translation of the original statement given in Hindi)
4. Looking to serious condition of Kumari Pooja she was referred for treatment to Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur where she died on 22.10.2007. As per the medical evidence the cause of death was septicemia shock due to dry heat flames burn. Consequent to death of Kumari Pooja the investigating agency registered a case against the appellant accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The appellant accused was arrested on 16.10.2007 and as per injury report Ex.P/30 he too was having few burn injuries.
5. The investigating agency after completing the investigation submitted a police report to competent court which committed the case to the court of Sessions being sessions triable. On 18.1.2008 a charge was framed against the appellant accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He denied the same, therefore, trial commenced as desired.
6. The prosecution supported its case by getting testimony of 20 witnesses examined and by exhibiting 42 documents. The appellant accused while explaining adverse and incriminating evidence against him stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and whatever evidence available i.e. either false or concocted. No evidence in defence was adduced.
7. Learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for the appellant accused and learned Public Prosecutor recorded conviction and awarded sentence to the accused appellant being held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Learned t