STATE Vs. MUGUTSAB KHASIMSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Additional SPP on merits in both these appeals. The Respondent-Accused was originally charged with having committed the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the allegation being that in a fit of temper he is supposed to have doused the saree of the victim wife in kerosene oil and set fire to it. The victim Saleema suffered serious burn injuries and ultimately died. The evidence in the case was conclusive insofar as Pw-2 Nisarahmed, who was her 13 year old son has deposed about the incident apart from the fact that there was on record the dying declaration. On the facts and circumstances of the case, however the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. It is in respect of the acquittal u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code that the State has filed the first of the appeal for enhancement of sentence. We have heard the learned Additional SPP on merits in both the appeals.

(2.) ON doing a thorough review of the case, we find that it is difficult to uphold the submission canvassed on behalf of the State that this was a pre-meditated murder and the consequently, the accused is liable to be convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. What we fined from the record is that there was a quarrel between the husband and wife over the fact that some guests had come over to the house and she had prepared extra food. The incident took a bad turn because the accused seemed to have lost his temper in the course of which, he set fire to the clothes of the deceased Saleema. While the law does not condone such acts, the law also takes cognizance of the facts and circumstances and in our considered view, the Trial Judge, in law, was perfectly justified in having categorised the conviction as one u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Both on facts and in law the decision of the Trial Court is absolutely correct and consequently, the appeal challenging the acquittal u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be dismissed on merits.

(3.) COMING to the question of adequacy of sentence, the Trial Court has taken cognizance of several relevant factors, the first of them is the status of the accused who is a coolie and the fact that he had been in custody from the time of his arrest right upto the disposal of the case which is a total period of four years ten months i. e. , almost five years. Having regard to the sentence that are normally awarded for this category of cases, in our considered view, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the sentence undergone by the accused is more than adequate. The learned Trial Judge has given valid and cogent reasons for having awarded the sentence which the Trial Court has awarded or for having confined the sentence to the limits of what the Trial Court has awarded and after a review of the facts and circumstances of the case and more importantly, the law, we confirm the correctness of that order. The second of the two appeals is also liable therefore to be dismissed on merits.