ROHTASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the Appellant challenged his conviction for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of '5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for five months.

(2.) Briefly the prosecution case is that one Samay Singh admitted in the Safdarjang Hospital gave the statement that he has two brothers of which one Ram Kishan lives with his father and he along with the other brother Rohtas lives in Jhuggi at Mehram Nagar. Rohtas, the Appellant wanted to get the Jhuggi vacated from him and thus, used to quarrel a number of times. At about 2.30 a.m. when Samay Singh was sleeping in his Jhuggi his brother Rohtas poured kerosene oil over him. He woke up and asked his brother as to what he was doing on which Rohtas said that today he would die and set him ablaze by lighting a match stick. On his raising an alarm some tenants came and extinguished the fire. Samay Singh/Complainant then went to PS Palam Airport and lodged a report from where he was removed to Safdarjung Hospital by the police. On the statement of the Complainant case FIR No. 95/1996 under Section 307 IPC was registered at PS Delhi Cantt. After completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed. After recording the prosecution evidence and statement of the Appellant, he was convicted as above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the conviction contends that the statement of PW1 Samay Singh, the complainant suffers from contradictions. After putting himself on fire and extinguishing the same the Complainant/Samay Singh went on his own to the police station and the said information given by him was recorded as DD No. 6 vide Ex.PW4/A. In the said statement the complainant/Samay Singh has attributed no reason for setting him ablaze by his brother Rohtas. As per the said statement the complainant only came to know when his body started burning. Though he stated that the neighbours extinguished the fire, nobody from the neighbourhood was examined except PW2 Mithlesh Kumar who turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The doctor Mahesh Vyas PW6 in his testimony has stated that the injury on the Complainant could be self inflicted. Thus, in view of the contradictions in the statement of the complainant before the Court and his initial statement, the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.