JUDGMENT

1. In this criminal appeal filed under section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the appellant has questioned the judgment dated 30.7.2010 passed in Session Trial No. 99/2009 decided by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, whereby the appellant was held guilty for committing offence under section 302 of IPC and directed to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. The appellant was acquitted from committing offence under section 304-B of IPC.

Facts :-

2. In short, the case of prosecution is that appellant solemnized marriage with Sangeeta before three years from the date of incident which had taken place on 12.5.2008. As per the prosecution story, after marriage for sometime the appellant lived with his wife peacefully but thereafter started demanding money to buy a motor-cycle.

3. As per ‘marg’ intimation dated 13.5.2008, on 12.5.2008 at midnight, the appellant approached Balram (PW-4) and informed him that Sangeeta has set herself ablaze. Balram along with appellant reached the house of appellant and found that the room inside the house is covered by flame and the door was broke open and it was found that Sangeeta is lying on the bed in dead condition. Appellant fled away from the place of incident. The complainant Balram (PW-4) had doubt on appellant and, accordingly, lodged ‘marg’ intimation report in Police Chowki, Khaira Palari, Police Station, Keolari.

4. The Investigating Officer Laxmi Singh (PW-9) started the investigation. The lock put on the broken door of the room where dead body of Sangeeta was found and seized through (Ex.P/7). The panchayatnama of body was prepared by Executive Magistrate Shri P. K. Shukla (PW-5) through (Ex.P/2). A ‘site map’ was prepared by Investigating Officer Laxmi Singh (PW-9). Apart from that, the burnt material etc. were collected from the scene of crime. After completion of investigation, while registering Crime No.119 of 2008, the First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P/11) was recorded. The ruptured trachea of deceased and her clothes were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Sagar through the draft of Superintendent of Police, Seoni (Ex.P/12). FSL report (Ex.P/14) & (Ex.P/15) were received in due course.

5. After committal of matter to the Sessions Court, the case was registered where appellant has abjured his guilt. In due course, defence witnesses ‘D.W.1’ to ‘D.W.4’ recorded their statement. The Court below framed two questions for its determination. After recording evidence of parties and hearing the parties, the impugned judgment was passed whereby the appellant was acquitted from section 304-B of the IPC whereas, as noticed above, he was held guilty for committing offence under section 302 of the IPC. This judgment is subject matter of challenge before us.

Appellant’s contention :-

6. Ms. Gayatri Ladhiya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that star witness of the prosecution is Balram (PW-4). Balram is uncle (Mausa) of deceased Sangeeta. By placing reliance on the statement of Balram (PW-4), it is submitted that the appellant allegedly approached him on the date of incident at around 12:00 at night. Appellant was only wearing undergarments. Along with the appellant, he approached the place of incident and found that door of the house was locked from inside. He cried for help and called the neighbour. When neighbours reached to the place of incident, they broke open the door and entered the house and used water to control the fire. They found that Sangeeta is no more. In Para-9 of his deposition, Balram (PW-4) deposed that broken door was locked from inside which was opened with a key available at the place of incident. A panchnama of lock and key (Ex.P/7) was prepared. He again deposed that door was locked from inside and it was opened by breaking it by means of a ‘Sabbal’. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if door was locked from inside which is evident from the statement o