PERMANAND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.16/2008 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a total fine of Rs.4000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) In the present case, there are two deceased namely Surekha Sahu and Droupadi Sahu, close friend of Surekha Sahu. The appellant is a resident of Village - Gudheli whereas the deceased persons were residing at Village - Surdung about 22 km away from the village of the appellant. Further undisputed fact is that deceased Surekha was not having good relations with the appellant and prior to about three years of the incident she was residing separately in a different village in the house of Droupadi. According to the prosecution case, on 22.6.2007 at about 10 pm the appellant along with 4-5 other persons entered the house of Droupadi where both Surekha and Droupadi were watching TV and set them afire. Immediately after being burnt, Surekha asked her minor son Yaman, aged 10 years (not examined) to inform PW-12 Gautam Singh Thakur about the incident. Yaman accordingly rushed to Gautam (PW-12) and narrated the entire incident to him who then along with PW-13 Bhikham Das reached the place of occurrence and saw both Surekha and Droupadi in burnt condition. As soon as they reached the place of occurrence, Surekha asked PW-12 to save her. On information of the incident being received by the police through telephone they immediately sent ambulance to take the victims to hospital. At 00.45 in the night Droupadi was hospitalized whereas Surekha was hospitalized at 00.50 in the night by PW-14 Dr. VR Meshram vide Ex.D/4 and D/2 respectively. In the said bedhead tickets (Ex.D/2 and D/4) it has been recorded by the doctor that he was informed by the patients that five persons who had covered their faces burnt them. In the night itself at 1.15, fitness certificate was issued by Dr. Meshram (PW-14) vide Ex.P/20 and P/21 that they are in a fit state of mind to make statement. At 2 in the night Dehati Nalishi was registered at the instance of Surekha vide Ex.P/28 wherein she has stated that on account of some family dispute the appellant along with 3-4 persons entered the house of Droupadi where she was watching TV with Droupadi and set them on fire by pouring kerosene on them. FIR (Ex.P/29) was registered under Section 307/34 of IPC against the appellant and his 3-4 companions. PW-15 Shrikant Verma, Executive Magistrate, was summoned by PW-17 Vishram Singh Thakur, Investigating Officer, and at 3.00 am dying declaration of Surekha was recorded vide Ex.P/23 and that of Droupadi was recorded at 3.15 am vide Ex.P/24 wherein they have categorically stated as to the manner in which they were burnt by the appellant. Thereafter, on 23.6.2007 at 5 am Surekha expired whereas Droupadi expired at 7 am which was recorded in the merg intimations at 6.45 am and 8.30 am vide Ex.P/10 and P/8 respectively. Inquests over the dead bodies of Surekha and Droupadi were conducted vide Ex.P/2 and P/4 on 23.6.2007. Postmortem on the body of deceased Droupadi was conducted on 23.6.2007 vide Ex.P/5 by PW-4 Dr. SK Fating and postmortem on the body of deceased Surekha was conducted on 25.6.2007 vide Ex.P/7 by PW-6 Dr. PC Deshmukh. According to the autopsy surgeons, deceased Droupadi was 95% burnt whereas deceased Surekha was 100% burnt and their cause of death was shock and extreme deep burn. While framing charge, the trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined two witnesses.