IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
S.K. GANGELE, ANJULI PALO, JJ.
Sevaklal - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1038 of 2007
Decided On : 30-01-2018
Dying Declaration - Conviction under Section 304 Part I of IPC - [Indian Penal Code] - [Section 302, Section 304 Part I] - The court discussed the admissibility of dying declaration and relied on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. It also referenced previous cases to determine the appropriate section under IPC for the offense committed by the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant's offense fell under Section 304 Part I of IPC and awarded a sentence of already undergone.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the judgment convicting him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for setting his wife ablaze. The prosecution's case relied on the dying declaration of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the dying declaration, witness testimonies, and medical evidence to determine the guilt of the appellant. It found that the offense committed by the appellant fell under Section 304 Part I of IPC and awarded a sentence of already undergone.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the appropriate section under IPC for the offense committed by the appellant, considering the dying declaration and medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of dying declaration and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court to determine the guilt of the appellant and the appropriate section under IPC for the offense committed.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302 of IPC were set aside. He was convicted under Section 304 Part I of IPC and awarded a sentence of already undergone, leading to his immediate release.
S.K. GANGELE, J.
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 18.04.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.205/2006. The trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/-.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that relationship between the deceased and the appellant was not cordial. The appellant used to quarrel with the deceased and used to beat her. On the date of incident, at around 11 O'clock in the night, the deceased, who was the wife of the appellant, was sleeping in the house. The appellant came there. He abused the deceased. Thereafter, he had taken the deceased at the corner of the room and sprinkled kerosene on her and ablaze her. After hearing cry, other family members came on the spot. The deceased was taken to the Police Station Shahgarh. She lodged report on 10.08.2006. Thereafter, she was sent to the government hospital. Her dying declaration was recorded. Deceased died after seven days of the incident. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the judgment.
3. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Prosecution witnesses have not supported the case. If the prosecution case is accepted as it is, then also, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC because the incident had happened all of a sudden. There was no intention of the appellant to kill the deceased. Hence, the sentence of the appellant be awarded as already undergone.
4. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and awarded proper sentence.
5. Prosecution witnesses, even the family members of the deceased, turned hostile. Conviction of the appellant is based on the dying declaration of the deceased.
6. PW-2 Chhigga, is the father of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased was living with the appellant. After marriage when she used to come to him, she did not make any complaint about the accused. I do not know how the deceased was died. PW-3 Bandu is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that the deceased committed suicide because the appellant did not send her to her father's house. PW-4 Anari is neighbour of the deceased and the appellant. He deposed that at around 11 O'clock in the night I was at my house. I had heard a sound. Thereafter, I went on the spot alongwith other persons. I asked from the deceased that how she catch fire. She told me that she herself set her ablaze. PW-5 Raju is nephew of the deceased. He deposed that after hearing cry, I reached on the spot and inquired from my aunty/deceased that how she catch fire. She told me that the appellant did not send her to her father's house and she herself set her on fire. Thereafter, I went to the field to call my uncle. PW-8 Mihilal is another neighbour. He also turned hostile. He deposed that when I reached at the house of the appellant, the deceased told me that she herself set her ablaze because the appellant did not send her to her father's house.
7. PW-6 Dr. R.K. Chourasiya examined the deceased after the incident. He deposed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 10.08.2006. She received burn injuries. Total percentage of burn injuries was 61% i.e. on face 9%, on neck 1%, on chest (internal) 9%, on chest (external) 9%, on the backside 9%, on stomach 6%, on right hand 9%, on left hand 9%, on right leg 3% and on left leg 6. I submitted a report, which is Ex.P7. Naib Tehsildar came to the hospital to record dying declaration of the deceased. I gave a certificate that deceas
Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.