MANTRAM ROHIDAS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal appeal filed under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C., the two appellants herein, namely, Mantram Rohidas (A-1) and Smt. Bandhano Rohidas (A-2) are calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 29/7/2017, passed by Additional Judge, Katghora to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh), in Sessions Trial No.93 of 2016, whereby both the appellants herein have been convicted for offence under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500.00 each and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on 28/6/2016, in the evening at about 07:00 PM, in the courtyard of the house of Geeta Rohidas, situated at Village Puta within the ambit of Police Station Pali, the two accused-appellants herein firstly shared common intention to kill Geeta Rohidas (for short the 'deceased') and, thereafter, in furtherance thereof poured kerosene oil over her body and set her ablaze, due to which she suffered deep burn injuries and died later on during the course of treatment at Community Health Center, Pali on 3/7/2016 and, thereby, the appellants are said to have committed offence under Sec. 302/34 of IPC.

(3.) After the aforesaid incident, the deceased was escorted to the Community Health Center, Pali, on the same day i.e. on 28/6/2016 at about 10:20 PM, where at about 11.15 PM, Dr. P. Agrawal, Medical Officer, CHC Pali (PW-07) has recorded her first dying declaration vide Ex.P/23, in which, the deceased has stated that her mother-in-law (saas) and husband's brother (jeth) are the author of the crime in question. Thereafter, on 29/6/2016 at about 12:10 PM, the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, namely, Sandeep Thakur (PW-05) has recorded second dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P/17, in which, the deceased has only implicated the appellant No.01 herein and, thereafter, on 3/7/2016, deceased succumbed to the injuries and died.