The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming that the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite claims of accidental death.

1. This Criminal Appeal under S.374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 29-10-2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 35 of 2010 by which appellant has been convicted under S.302 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 500/- with default imprisonment of 1 month R.I.

2. The undisputed fact is that the deceased is wife of the appellant having married to him about 13-14 years back.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 26-2-2009, the deceased Saroj was admitted in J.A. Hospital at 11: 55 p. m. in burnt condition. After receiving an information from the hospital, Omprakash Yadav (P.W.9) went to hospital and gave a requisition to the doctor to record dying declaration. It was opined by the doctor that Saroj has suffered 90% burns and is not in a position to speak. During the treatment, Saroj expired and merg information was given to police station and accordingly, merg enquiry No. 12/2009 under S.174 of Cr.P.C. was registered. Safina form, Ex.P.1 was issued and Lash Panchnama Ex.P.2 was prepared. The dead body was sent for post - mortem. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. During enquiry, it was found that the deceased was preparing food on heater, and when she refused to pay money to the appellant for purchasing liquor, then after pouring kerosene oil on her, the appellant, pushed the head of the deceased near to the heater, as a result she caught fire. Accordingly, FIR in crime No. 1281/2009 was registered. Spot map, Ex.P.6 was prepared. The appellant was arrested. The police after completing the investigation filed charge sheet under S.302 of IPC.

4. The Trial Court framed charge under S.302 of IPC.

5. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution examined Lalaram (P. W. 1), Mukesh (P. W. 2), Rajabeti (P. W. 3), Vimla (P. W. 4), R. B. Singh (P. W. 5), Vijay Kumar (P. W. 6), Dr. Nikhil Agarwal (P. W. 7), Devendra Singh (P. W. 8), Omprakash Yadav (P. W. 9), and Dr. Farukh Khan (P.W.10).

7. The appellant examined Dr. Farukh Khan (D.W.1) as his defence witness.

8. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the above mentioned offence.

9. Challenging the judgment and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court below has failed to see that the deceased herself had disclosed to the doctor that she has got burnt accidentally while preparing meals on stove. Mukesh (P. W. 2) is a child witness and it is dangerous to rely on the child witness. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

10. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Trial Court.

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to find out as to whether the death of the deceased Saroj was homicidal in nature or not?

13. Dr. Nikhil Agarwal (P.W.7) has conducted the post - mortem of the deceased Saroj and found the following injuries on her body:
(i) 2 and 3 ante - mortem burn present on following parts of the body:
Lower part of the face, chin, neck, chest, abdomen, right upper limb with dorsum and proximal half of palm, left upper limb upto dorsum, both lower limbs upto ankles, genitals swollen.
At back: from nape of neck to whole of back, left buttock as a whole, right buttock in patches, both lower limbs upto heel. Death was due to cardio - respiratory failure as a resul