AMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.04.2011 in S.C. No.117/2008 has been challenged. The appellant was convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section-302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution's case is that an intimation was received by the police in Police Station Uttam Nagar that a fire incident had occurred during the night intervening 31.10.2007 and 01.11.2007 around 12:30 AM in house no.17/A Som Bazar, Vikas Nagar. After recording the DD Ex.PW-13/B-1, the police reached the spot. According to the prosecution, the injured Rampal had been taken to the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital by his wife Radha. After inspecting the spot, ASI Mamur Khan went to the hospital and recorded the statement of Rampal - Ex.PW15/B. The injured stated that at around 12:30 AM, his neighbour, the appellant Amit was quarreling with his family members under the influence of liquor. His wife Sonia and mother were raising an alarm since the appellant threatened to set himself on fire. Sonia cried out for help; the injured Rampal went to the appellant's house and saw that he had a plastic bottle containing petrol. Rampal tried to snatch the bottle from the appellant; the latter, however, caught hold of him and in this struggle, petrol spilled over Rampal and bottle fell. Some petrol also spilled on the floor. The appellant pushed Rampal and bolted the door, lit a match-stick and threw it on Rampal and ran away. Rampal sustained fire injuries. Rampal succumbed to his injuries on 03.11.2007. The investigation was later carried on by Inspector Rakesh Tyagi. After the conclusion of the investigation, the appellant was charged with committing the offence of murder. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also relied upon material documents such as postmortem report and dying declaration made by Rampal - Ex.PW-15/B and on consideration of all these, the Trial Court convicted the appellant.