KAMTA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against judgment dated 09.02.2009 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (CG) in Session Trial No.307/2006 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of 3,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) In the present case name of the deceased is Hemin Bai who is the wife of the appellant and their marriage took place in the month of November 2005. The deceased died due to burn injuries on 08.4.2006.

(3.) Case of the prosecution is based on the statement of Markandey (PW-2), who is the father of the deceased, Manmati (PW-3), who is the mother of the deceased and Bhuneshwar (PW- 7), who is the brother of the deceased. Though Markandey (PW- 2) deposed (para 2) that his son informed him that the appellant assaulted the deceased on the date of incident and prior to the date of incident, but this version is not supported by his son Bhuneshwar (PW-7). As per the version of Bhuneshwar (PW-7), Hemin Bai informed him that mother-in-law of the deceased harassed her by not providing food for her and pouring hot water on her body. This witness again deposed that Hemin Bai informed him that the appellant and his mother poured kerosene on her body and set her ablaze, but version of this witness is not supported from any angle. No dying declaration was recorded in the present case and no suicidal note was seized during the course of investigation. Manmati (PW-3) is mother of the deceased and version of this witness is based on what is informed to her by the deceased. No one is eyewitness account of any incident of assault or harassing the deceased by not providing food or some other way. Therefore, statement made by this witness is bald and general which is not substantiated by incriminating piece of evidence.