In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 the appellant has questioned the judgment dated

30.07.2010 passed in Session Trial No. 99/2009 decided by the learned First

Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni, whereby the appellant was held guilty for

2

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 12.05.2008. 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 13.05.2008, on 12.05.2008 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

3

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

4

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