MADHU @ MADHURI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th of July, 1994 passed in Session Trial No. 174/87 by the Second Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted U/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--

(2.) The case of the prosecution was based on eye witness account of Ku. Ritu (PW-13 - daughter of the deceased) and oral dying declaration before Shankarlal Agrawal (PW-4). Ku. Ritu (PW-13) was a child witness. The learned Session Judge relied on her testimony and also relied on the testimony of Shankarlal Agrawal (PW-4) and held that it was a case of homicidal death which took place in the house of the appellant. According to the eye-witness, the appellant poured kerosene on the deceased and put her on fire.

(3.) Mr. Surendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that testimony of Ku. Ritu (PW-13) was not reliable as she has exaggerated her version and tried to involve other inmates of the house; she was aged about 4 years on the date of incident; after the incident, she throughout remained with her maternal grand-father and her evidence appears to be tutored. About Shankarlal Agrawal (PW-4), he argued that, in fact, he was a witness of seizure memo of pieces of bangles (Ex.-P/16), but, he deposed about the oral dying declaration. There was no previous statement of Shankarlal Agrawal (PW-4). He deposed about the oral dying declaration for the first time before the Court. Therefore he was also unreliable. Even for the sake of argument it is taken that the deceased made oral dying declaration before Shankarlal Agrawal (PW-4), but by the alleged dying declaration, identity of the appellant was never established. He also argued on an important circumstance that the father of the deceased namely Ghanshyamdas Gupta (PW-12) met the deceased in the hospital. They talked about the future of children of the deceased, but the deceased never disclosed him that she was put to fire by the appellant, that is to say that no dying declaration was made before father of the deceased implicating the appellant. If the deceased was put on fire by the appellant, in normal human conduct, the deceased must have disclosed this fact to her father.