SUMITRA BANDHE Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants herein namely Sumitra Bandhe (A-2), Dilip Bandhe (A-3) and Mamta Bandhe (A-4) under Sec. 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 27/1/2014 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No.186/2012, by which while acquitting accused Faguwaram (A-1), the trial Court has convicted the present accused / appellants - A-2, A-3 and A-4 for offences under Ss. 302 read with Sec. 34 and 498A of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each, in default, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500.00 each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that marriage of deceased Ramabai was solemnized with appellant No.2 herein Dilip Bandhe (A-3) on 16/5/2005 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a boy child, who was 3 years old on the date of offence. It is the further case of the prosecution that the three appellants herein one acquitted accused used to quarrel with deceased Ramabai stating that she is not fit for their family and she does not work at home. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 19/7/2012 at about 10:00 p.m., husband of the deceased - Dilip Bandhe (A-3) came to the house in inebriated condition and started abusing the deceased and thereafter, he tried to strangulate her and thereafter, he poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased and thereafter, motherin-law of the deceased - Sumitra Bandhe (A-2) and sister-in-law of the deceased - Mamta Bandhe (A-4) set her ablaze by a matchstick and thereafter, she was rescued by her brother-in-law and another sister-in-law and subsequently, she was admitted to District Hospital, Durg and thereafter, she was readmitted to Sector9 Hospital, Bhilai where during the course of treatment, she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her and died on 25/7/2012. On 20/7/2012, when the deceased was admitted to District Hospital, Durg by her husband, Bhagwati Prasad (PW-3) - owner of the vehicle, Tilakram (PW-4) - neighbour and Naresh Kumar (PW-6) - neighbour, at that time, mother of the deceased - Gayatri Bai (PW1) and father of the deceased - Gendlal (PW-7) visited District Hospital, Durg. On 21/7/2012, the deceased was again admitted to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where she gave the medical history to Dr. Uday Kumar (PW-14) that she sustained burn injuries accidentally while cooking on a kerosene oil stove at about 11:00 p.m. on 19-7- 2012 which was recorded in Ex.P-22 proved by Dr. Uday Kumar (PW-14). Thereafter, on 23/7/2012, written report was made by Gendlal (PW-7) - father of the deceased, to the police vide Ex.P-12 alleging cruel treatment on the part of the accused / appellants and pouring kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and setting her ablaze by which she suffered injuries. Thereafter, on 24/7/2012, dying declaration (Ex.P-17) was recorded by Executive Magistrate B.K. Verma (PW-9) at Sector-9 Hospital wherein the deceased implicated all the accused persons i.e. the three appellants herein (A-2 to A-4) and one acquitted accused (A-1) that they poured kerosene oil on her body and set her ablaze. Thereafter, dehati nalishi Ex.P-15 was recorded by Yoddha Prasad Deshmukh (PW-8) - Head Constable, on the instance of the deceased wherein it was informed that on the date of incident, husband of the deceased (A3) poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased and motherin-law (A-2) and sister-in-law (A-4) set her ablaze by matchstick.

(3.) After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court and charges were framed against the appellants herein and one acquitted accused under Ss. 302 read with Sec. 34 and 498A of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Durg from where the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.