RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th of February, 1996 passed in Session Trial No. 85/93 by the Fourth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, appellant No. 1 (Al) has heen convicted under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs. 2,000 and appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 201 IPC & sentenced as above for the said offence.

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under-Deceased Chandrakali Bai was wife of appellant Ramprasad (Al). She was residing with the appellant No. 1. On account of certain dispute, on 23.4.92, appellant No. 1 said the deceased to go away from his house. He said that he will marry a second wife. Appellant No. 1 said the deceased to immediately leave his house, on which, the deceased said that she will leave his house tomorrow. On this conversation only, appellant No. 1 closed the doors of kitchen and poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased received serious burn injuries. The further case of the prosecution is that when the deceased was being taken to the hospital, the appellants told her that she should say in the hospital that she had received burn injuries while preparing meals. The case of the prosecution was based on two dying declarations (Ex. P8 & P6). The first dying declaration (Ex. P8) was recorded by Dr. R.N. Dhritlahre (PW8) and the second dying declaration was recorded by Investigation Officer, ASI S.R. Gupta (PW5). Dehatinalishi (Ex.P4) was also given by the deceased herself. The learned Session Judge treated dehatinalishi (Ex.P4) also as dying declaration and finding consistency in the above three dying declarations convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.

(3.) Mr. Arun Kochar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that the dying declarations are not reliable, therefore, conviction cannot be sustained. For appellant No. 2, he argued that in the first dying declaration (Ex. P8), there are no allegations against this appellant and the allegations that he also tried to convince the deceased to say that it was an accidental death comes in the two later documents (Ex. P6 & P4), therefore, the above omission was fatal.