LEKHRAM SONWANI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 11/6/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.31/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine 6 months additional R.I. was also ordered.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that on 2/3/2018, the appellant came drunk in his house and on such, the dispute occurred in between the husband and the wife i.e. the appellant and the deceased. The same was intervened by the mother of the accused and the wife stated that because of such drinking habit, she will leave him. Being enraged by that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased. On such incident, the deceased wife ran away from the house and entered into the house of one neighbor namely Naresh and the accused/appellant went there, caught hold of her and dragged her back to his house which was seen by Uwandas Manikpuri (PW-2), Manohar Das (PW-4) and Naresh Chand Mahanand (PW-16), thereafter she was found 100% burnt at her house and when she was even taken to the hospital her statement could not be recorded. The appellant subsequently was arrested on the basis of the memorandum and kerosene jerrican was recovered and subsequently after taking the statement of the witness, the charge-sheet was filed. At the relevant time, it is stated that the mother of the accused went out to search for the children of the appellant & deceased and when she came back she found that Sevti, daughter-in-law, was on fire. After the fire was extinguished, the deceased was taken to the hospital and eventually she died on 5/3/2018 in the Government Hospital, Raipur. The map of the area was prepared and the seized property was subjected to FSL and subsequently the charge-sheet was filed. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on their behalf examined as many as 17 witnesses and the Court after evaluating the facts convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no direct evidence of the incident and it is only based on circumstantial evidence and only because of the fact a prior quarrel took place in between the husband and wife the allegation of burn is attributed to the appellant. He would further submit that the way the incident has happened at their Kitchen (Rasoi) it might have also happened that she might have committed suicide. He would further submit that in order to prove the accusation, the prosecution has to prove the evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution even the memorandum and seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the kerosene jerrican which was seized at the instance of the accused was not subjected to any finger print examination to show that he poured kerosene on the deceased by picking up the jerrican and set her ablaze, therefore, since no direct evidence is available, the appellant is liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.