SITARAM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGHARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 30 -12 -2003 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.351/2001. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Sitaram and Aghan Bai have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_248_CGLJ2_2013n1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Deceased Smt. Sangeeta was married to Laxmi, son of dead appellant Sitaram about 3 years prior to the date of incident and she was residing with her husband in her matrimonial house along with the appellants. She died due to burn injuries in Government Hospital, Bilaspur. The appellants were calling her as Charkat, Veshya and saying that she was not delivering any child, they were asking her to go out of their house. Due to ill -treatment and continuous harassment by the appellants, the deceased pouring kerosene on her set her on fire. Deceased Smt. Sangeeta was taken to Government Hospital, Bilaspur. She was admitted in burn -unit of the hospital. She died during treatment on 2 -6 -2001 at about 4:45 P.M. Dr. Smt. S. Jitpure sent intimation of death pf the deceased to Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur vide Ex.P -8. MergNo.33/ 2001 was recorded in Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur. The Investigating Officer reached Government Hospital, Bilaspur, gave notice (Ex.P -1) to Panchas, and prepared inquest (Ex.P -9) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Government Hospital, Bilaspur for post mortem examination. Dr. V.R.Hotchandani (PW -4) conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased along with Dr. Smt. M. Pandey. They gave their report (Ex.P -7). They opined that the caused of death of the deceased was septicemia due to ante mortem burn injuries. In further investigation, memorandum statement (Ex.P -4) of appellant Sitaram was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and at his instance, a godari and a plastic container were seized vide Ex.P -5. Spot -Map (Ex.P -6) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. Saree, blouse and underwear were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P -3 and a godari was seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P -5. Regular First Information Report (Ex.P -13) was registered in Police Station Masturi. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P -14. Report (Ex.P -15) was received therefrom. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Bilaspur, from where, it was received on transfer by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

(3.) SHRI Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel for the appellant Aghan Bai argued that Ramratan (PW -1) is father and Ganeshiya (PW -3) is mother of the deceased. They are highly interested witnesses. The independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants. The provision of Section 113 -A of the Evidence Act is not applicable in this case. The prosecution has not established that prior to the death of the deceased she had been either subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellants. Evidence in this respect is wholly insufficient to convict the appellants. The prosecution adduced the evidence of oral dying declaration of the deceased made before Ramratan (PW -1), which is wholly unreliable. He further argued that Executive Magistrate S.S.Dubey (DW -2) recorded the dying declaration (Ex.D -1) of the deceased after obtaining certification from treating Dr. Rajnikant Verma (DW -1). The dying declaration (Ex.D -1) reveals that the death of the deceased was accidental. Therefore, appellant Aghan Bai deserves to be acquitted of the charge framed against her.