VIMALA JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the above three cases arise out of the judgment and order dated 24.3.2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, Bastar in ST No.633/93, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In the present case, name of the deceased is Tarabai, wife of accused Suresh Jain. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1989 and she died on 26.8.1993 at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai while undergoing treatment after suffering 70% burn injuries. Accused Smt. Vimla Jain is mother-in-law of the deceased whereas accused Smt. Anita Jain is her sister-in-law (Jethani). On 23.8.1993 at about 4 am while boiling milk on the gas-stove, the deceased suffered burn injuries, she was taken to District Hospital, commonly known as Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, at about 11.50 am where she was treated till 25.8.1993 and thereafter, was taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai where she succumbed to burn injuries on 26.8.1993. Information was sent from the hospital to the police authorities, based on which merg intimation Ex.P/6 was registered on 26.8.1993. In the meanwhile, on 23.8.1993 statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of injured Tarabai was recorded vide Ex.D/4 and likewise, her dying declaration (Ex.P/13) was also recorded on the same day. However, in her case diary statement as well as in the dying declaration, she has categorically stated that she suffered burn injuries while boiling milk and nowhere she has alleged that she was burned by the accused persons or that she made any attempt to commit suicide. On 27.8.1993 postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-13 Dr. RB Agrawal who noticed 55% burn injuries and in his opinion, the cause of death was shock as a result of extensive antimortem burn. On 14.9.1993 a typed written report (Ex.P/8) was made by PW-1 Ladu Bai, mother of the deceased and on the same day, FIR (Ex.P/4) under Section 304B of IPC was registered against the present accused persons and their four other family members. The other four accused persons preferred a petition before the High Court of MP and the charges against them were quashed by the High Court. Present accused persons were charged under Sections 304B, 498A, 306, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined two witnesses.