Back
2006 Supreme(UK) 298
HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL
Rajeev Gupta, Prafulla C. Pant
BHANUMATI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 831 Of 2001
Decided On : JUNE 12, 2006
D.K.SHARMA, H.C.PANDEY, T.A KHAN
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Death by burn injuries — Dying Declaration — Admissibility of — Prosecution of appellant for causing death of her daughter-in-law by pouring Kerosene oil on and setting her on fire — Prosecution case that behaviour of appellant accused was not good with deceased and she used to threaten her and also used to turn her out from house — Allegation that on date of occurrence when deceased was sleeping appellant poured Kerosene on her and set her on fire — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction — No direct evidence to show that accused was seen committing crime by any witnesses examined by prosecution — Conviction based on dying declaration made by deceased to PW3 Naib Tehsildar that her mother-in-law
set her on fire — Statement of deceased in Dying Declaration that after pouring kerosene on her, appellant and her husband came and tried to extinguish fire by putting bed sheet over her on her shouting for help — Defence case that deceased had committed suicide found unacceptable — Nothing on record so as to give rise to any reasonable cause to doubt truthfulness of dying declaration — Evidence of PW4 doctor that at time of making Dying Declaration, deceased was mentally fit to make statement — Entire statement as recorded in Dying Declaration not showed that deceased had named her mother-in-law falsely — Had it been so, deceased would not have stated that her mother-in-law attempted to extinguish fire on her shout for help — Dying Declaration corroborated by statement of PWl, father of deceased that deceased gave similar statement to him also when he went to see her in hospital — Categorical statement of deceased in Dying Declaration that after fire engulfed her, appellant herself told deceased that she had set her on fire — Narration and Dying Declaration natural and reliable — Trial Court rightly found appellant guilty of charges farmed against her — No error of law or of fact found in impugned judgment of trial Court — Conviction of appellant not liable to be interfered with.(Paras 9 to 16)
Facts of the case:
1.The appellant accused herein in the instant case was convicted by Trial Court u/s 302 IPC for causing death of her daughter-in-law by pouring Kerosene oil on her and setting her on fire.
2.Aggrieved by said order of
conviction and sentence, appellant has preferred present appeal.
3.Findings of the Court : The Court held that there was no direct evidence to show that accused was seen committing crime by any witnesses examined by prosecution. Conviction was based on dying declaration made by deceased to PW3 Naib Tehsildar that her mother-in-law set her on fire. Statement of deceased in Dying Declaration that after pouring kerosene on her, appellant and her husband came and tried to extinguish fire by
putting bed sheet over her on her shouting for help. Defence case that deceased had committed suicide was found unacceptable. Nothing on record so as to give rise to any reasonable cause to doubt truthfulness of dying declaration. Evidence of PW4 doctor that at time of making Dying Declaration, deceased was mentally fit to make statement. Entire statement as recorded in Dying Declaration not showed that deceased had named her mother-in-law falsely. Had it been so, deceased would not have stated that her mother-in-law attempted to extinguish fire on her shout for help. Dying Declaration was corroborated by statement of PWl, father of deceased that deceased gave similar statement to him also when he went to see her in hospital. Categorical statement of deceased in Dying Declaration that after fire engulfed her, appellant herself told deceased that she had set her on fire. Narration and Dying Declaration held natural and reliable. Trial Court rightly found appellant guilty of charges framed against her. No error of law or of fact found in impugned judgment of
trial Court. Conviction of appellant not liable to be interfered with.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr. P. C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 28. 11. 1988, passed in Sessions trial No. 210 of 1987, by the then, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby the appellant Bhanumati was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as i. P. C.) and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
( 2 ) PROSECUTION story in brief is that the complainant Tilak Ram (P. W. 1), father of the deceased, lodged the first information report (Ext. A-1) with police station Kichcha on 27. 07. 1987 at 12:45 hours, alleging that his daughter Smt. Jasoda was married with Ash Narayan s/o Baldeo R/o Inderpur, P. S. Kichcha, district Nainital. The accused/appellant smt. Bhanumati is the mother of Ash narayan and mother-in-law of the deceased. The behaviour of accused/appellant was not good with the deceased and she used to threaten her. She also used to turn out her daughter-in-law (deceased) from her house but some days before the occurrence there was a compromise and Smt. Jasoda (deceased) was sent by her parents to live with her in-laws. In the intervening night of 21st and 22nd July, 1987, accused/appellant bhanumati poured kerosene oil over Smt. Jasoda and set her on fire. The complainant, Tilak Ram (P. W. 1), has also stated that he got the information of the incident from the Up-Pradhan of the Village panchayat and after visiting the hospital and after enquiring about the incident from his daughter he came to the police station to lodge the F. I. R. against the appellant. Constable Ram Pal Singh (P. W. 2)registered the first information report (Ext. A-1) and prepared check report (Ext. A-2)and made entry in the general diary (extract of which is Ext. A-3 ). The crime was registered as crime No. 158 of 1987 under Section 307 of the I. P. C. Meanwhile, the dying declaration (Ext. A-4) of the deceased was recorded by P. W. 3, purshottam Joshi, Naib Tehsildar, kichcha. After about seven days, injured jasoda succumbed to the injuries due to septicemia on 29. 07. 1987 at Primary health Center, Kichcha and the case was converted into one under Section 302 of the I. P. C. P. W. 7, S. I. R. B. Lal on receiving information of death of Jasoda went to the Primary Health Center and took the dead body in his possession and got prepared inquest report (Ext. A-12) and other papers namely photo sketch of the dead body (Ext. A-14), police form No. 13 (Ext. A 13), police form No. 33 (Ext. A-15), letter requesting for post-mortem examination (Ext. A-16 ). The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P. W. 5, Dr. J. S. Pangti conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body on 30. 07. 1987. According to the said medical Officer cause of death was septicemia, which was possible due to extensive burns. He prepared the post-mortem examination report (Ext. A-9 ). Initially, the investigation was done by P. W. 7, Sub inspector R. B. Lal and after the crime was converted to one under Section 302 of i. P. C. , further investigation was conducted by P. W. 8, R. P. Singh, Station house Officer. After the statements of witnesses were recorded and site plan (Ext. A-10) was prepared, charge sheet (Ext. A-19) against the appellant, was submitted in the court by P. W. 8 (Investigating Officer ). Concerned learned Magistrate after registering the charge sheet provided necessary copies, as required under Section 207 of the Cr. P. C. , to the accused and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.
( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. C. against accused/appellant Bhanumati. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P. W. 1, Tilak Ram, informant and father of the deceased; P. W. 2, Constable Ram
