Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rakesh Saksena, T. K. Kaushal, JJ.
Jham Singh S/O Saroopchand Pawar – Petitioner
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 2156 of 2000
Decided On : 04-09-2012
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, section 302 - The court discussed the evidence of dying declarations, the reliability of dying declarations, and the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased. The court also referred to the legal principle established in the case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 SC 3630, which influenced the decision to alter the conviction from section 302 to section 304-Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for setting a woman on fire, resulting in her death. The prosecution's case was based on dying declarations and medical evidence, while the defense claimed false implication and accidental burn injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries, and the dying declarations were reliable and supported by the first information report. The court also considered the circumstances of the incident and the legal precedent in the case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, which influenced the decision to alter the conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of dying declarations, the intention of the appellant, and the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dying declarations, the first information report, and the circumstances of the incident to establish the appellant's intention and culpability. The legal principle established in the case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan influenced the decision to alter the conviction.
Final Decision: The court altered the appellant's conviction from section 302 to section 304-Part II of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH SAKSENA, J.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29th June, 2000, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 119/99, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
2. In short, the prosecution case is that appellant developed affairs with Koushalyabai, a married woman, who was residing in village Nandora. Her husband and son had gone to Nagpur to earn livelihood. On 28-5-1999, at about 9 P.M., when appellant went to the house of Koushalyabai, she insisted him to keep her as his woman. When appellant did not agree for the same, there occurred an altercation, during which, he kicked Koushalyabai and after pouring kerosene set her on fire by burning matchstick. But, immediately thereafter he tried to save her by extinguishing the fire. On her shouting, Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5), Shivlal (PW7) and Rajkumar (PW1) also reached there and extinguished the fire. They carried her in a jeep to Police Station Barghat, where, in the night of 29-5-1999, at about 2.25 A.M., she lodged the report Ex. P/14.
3. Sub Inspector G. R. Singh (PW14) after recording the report sent Koushalyabai to Community Health Centre, Barghat. At Barghat, Naib Tahsildar S. L. Choudhary (PW8) recorded her dying declaration Ex.P/9. She was referred to District Hospital, Seoni for further treatment. Dr. R. K. Sharma (PW12) examined her injuries and vide her M.L.C. report Ex. P/12 found 40% burn injuries on her body. She was admitted in female surgical ward. In the course of treatment, on 8-7-1999, Koushalyabai succumbed to her injuries. Dr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi (PW11) sent intimation about her death to Police Station, Seoni.
4. Head Constable Nandlal (PW13), in presence of witnesses viz. Sewakram Sahu (PW3) and Nandkishore (PW4) conducted inquest proceeding and recorded memorandum Ex. P/4. The dead body of Koushalyabai was sent to District Hospital, Seoni for post-mortem examination.
5. Dr. A. K. Sarawgi (PW6) conducted post-mortem examination on 8-7-1999 and found burn injuries on her body. In his opinion, the death of deceased was the result of septic shock and complications due to 45% burn injuries.
6. Sub Inspector G. R. Singh (PW14) converted the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded for investigation. After completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. On charge being framed, appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He pleaded that Koushalyabai suffered accidental burn injuries. On hearing her shrieks, he reached there and tried to extinguish the fire.
8. In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined Rajkumar (PW1), Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5) and Shivlal (PW7), but they did not support the prosecution version. The Trial Judge, however, relying on the evidence of dying declaration Ex. P/9 recorded by Executive Magistrate S. L. Choudhary (PW8), the first information report Ex. P/14 recorded by Inspector G. R. Singh (PW14) treating as dying declaration and finding the same corroborated by the medical evidence held the appellant guilty and convicted him under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant has filed this appeal.
9. Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the evidence of dying declaration was not reliable since it was not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses Rajkumar (PW1), Lakkhu (PW2), Shankerlal (PW5) and Shivlal (PW7). It was evident from the aforesaid dying declarations that the appellant tried to save deceased by extinguishing fire and also took deceased to police station and hospital. In the alternative, placing reliance on the ratio of Apex Court decision rendered in case of Kalu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 SC 3630, he submitted that the conviction of appe
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
