IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder was clarified, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing within the reformative justice framework.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Jugal Kishor Khanna assisted by Sri Amit Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals and the learned AGA for the State in both these appeals.

2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 19.2.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2014 (State v. Aslam Noor Khan and another) convicting accused-appellants under Sections 452, 304/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 304/34 of IPC and in default of fine further to undergo six months additional imprisonment each and they have been also convicted for three years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 452 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months additional imprisonment each.

3. Factual scenario as culled out from the record and the judgment of the Court below are that both the accused tried to do away with the wife of informant by setting her ablaze. The incident took place on 4.11.2013 at 06:00 p.m. in the evening when the deceased requested the accused to return/leave the land belonging to the deceased as they were hand to mouth. This request caused anger in mind of both accused. Aslam Noor Khan started using filthy language. The deceased went in her house, the two followed her and poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.

4. The post-mortem report shows that there were ante-mortem burn injuries on face, neck, chest, arms and both the legs. The death was due to septicemic shock as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. The death occurred on 14.11.2023 namely after 10 days of the incident.

5. On investigation being put into motion, the investigating officer recorded the statements of all the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate summoned the accused and committed them to Court of Sessions as prima facie they were to be tried for offences committed under Sections 304, 452, 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

6. On being summoned, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried. The charges were framed for conviction of offences under Sections 452, 504, 304 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial started and the prosecution examined 10 witnesses who are as follows :

7. In support of ocular version following documents were filed :

8. At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants as mentioned above.

9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses of facts have not supported the prosecution and therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. In support of his submission learned counsel has relied on the decisions in G.V. Siddhramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152; Hari Om v. State of Haryana and another, (2014) 0 Supreme (SC) 783; Ravi Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2020(9) ADJ 208 (DB); Chhaganbhai Limjibhai Palas v. State of Gujarat, Crimi