Back
2009 Supreme(MP) 1369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. L. KOCHAR, MANJUSHA P. NAMJOSHI, JJ.
RAJU @ AHMED s/o GULAM NABI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 1131 of 2006
Decided On : 16-06-2009
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jaisingh, Raghuveer Singh
For the Respondent: G. Desai
The dying declaration and eyewitness testimony must inspire full confidence in their truthfulness and correctness, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - 302, 506-II - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged his conviction under sections 302 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of the deceased Smritibai. The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire, resulting in her death. The appellant refuted the charges, claiming that the deceased sustained burn injuries due to a sudden burst of a kerosene lamp while filling kerosene.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case proved and convicted the appellant based on the dying declaration of the deceased and the testimony of the eyewitness, the deceased's daughter. The court dismissed the appellant's defense and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issues: The core issue was whether the deceased died due to accidental burn or if the appellant set her on fire by pouring kerosene on her. The court also considered the reliability of the dying declaration and the eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It scrutinized the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony to determine their reliability. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for a dying declaration to inspire full confidence in its truthfulness and correctness.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, finding no substance in the appellant's defense.
JUDGMENT :
S. L. KOCHAR, J.
1. The appellant has challenged his conviction under sections 302 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code sentence to RI for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of fine additional RI for one year and three years RI respectively, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manavar, District Dhar in ST No. 51/2006, judgment dated 13-10-2006. Jail sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The appellant has admitted the following facts that Omprakash (PW.1), Anand (PW.2), Leelabai (PW.6) and Nupur (PW.8) are father, brother-sister-in-law and daughter of the deceased Smritibai, respectively. Mohansingh Morya (PW.3) was serving as driver in government hospital, Manavar and he had taken Smritibai, the appellant Raju @ Ahmed and Nupur in ambulance to hospital. Appellant was knowing Arvind (PW. 12) who had gone at the house of one Noorjahan for treatment of his sister situated in Teachers Colony and he had also gone with ambulance to hospital. The death of Smritibai due to burn and that Smritibai was serving as teacher in village Tonk and residing in Manavar have also been admitted.
3. The prosecution case in nut shell as put forth before the trial Court is that on 24-10-2005 Smritibai in burnt condition was brought to Primary Health Centre, Manavar from her house situated in Teacher's Colony, Manavar in the night at 11.00 p.m. Dr. K. C. Rane sent information (Ex.P.5) to Police Station, Manavar and on this basis, information was recorded in daily diary Serial No. 1280 vide Ex.P.17. Dr. Rane examined Smritibai and gave Medico Legal Certificate (for short "MLC") (Ex.P.6). Looking to the serious condition of Smritibai, her dying declaration (Ex.D.5) was got recorded by Naib Tehsildar (DW. 1) Shri Sakharam Yadav and she was referred for further treatment to District Hospital, Barwani. The reference letter is Ex.P.6. Smritibai died in District Hospital during the course of treatment, intimation (Ex.P.4) was sent to this effect to P. S. Barwani. Head Constable Sheikh Khurshid (PW.4) registered Murg Number (inquest number) 111/2005 under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ex.P.13), he also prepared inquest report (Ex.P.2) in presence of witnesses and sent the requisition (Ex.P. 3) to District Hospital for post-mortem examination of deceased Smritibai. Dr. Rajesh Jain (PW.9) conducted post-mortem of the dead body and issued report (Ex.P.12). According to him, deceased suffered 100% burn injury and died within six hours from the date and time of post-mortem examination.
3.1. Police Station, Barwani has sent intimation to P.S. Manavar in whose jurisdiction incident occurred and in P.S. Manavar, registered Murg No. 78/2005 entry whereof made in daily diary at Serial Number 581 dated 11-11-2006 (Ex.P.16). Sub Inspector G. R. Randhe (PW.10) in inquest enquiry reached on the spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P. 11) as well as seized kerosene plastic can, half burnt pieces of cloth through seizure memo (Ex.P.8). He also seized half burnt quilt, cotton bed and clothes of appellant through seizure memo (Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10), respectively. SHO Anand Singh Vaskale (PW.13) in inquest enquiry found that deceased was residing near the house of appellant in Teacher's Colony, Manavar and was having physical relation with appellant. On the date of incident i.e 24-10-2005 appellant reached at the house of Smriti and asked her to go with him at his house whereupon they had arguments and deceased denied to go with him but appellant was again and again insisting her, and on refusal appellant poured kerosene on her body and lit fire by match stick. The incident was witnessed by Nupur (PW.8), daughter of the deceased. It was also revealed in inquest enquiry that appellant threatened the deceased Smriti and her daughter Nupur for not giving correct information and took them to the hospital. The spot was also inspected by FSL. Unit and expert found that deceased died because of burn due to kerosene.
3.2 Anandsingh Vaskale (PW.13) on the
