KAMALKANT Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 13.10.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 37/2014 arising out of FIR No. 88/2009 PS Bindapur by which the appellant - Kamalkant was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sec. 304 Part -I IPC, the instant appeal has been filed by him. By an order dated 15.10.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/ -.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge - sheet was that on 09.03.2009 at around 09.30 a.m. at RZV -129, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, the appellant along with his other family members Ajay Singh, Kamlesh and Deepak Kumar (since acquitted) in furtherance of common intention poured kerosene on the victim - Mamta resulting in her death. Victim - Mamta was married to Kamalkant on 15.08.2008. It was a love marriage against the wishes of her parents. After the marriage, she lived at her matrimonial home for about two months. Thereafter, they shifted to a rented accommodation at RZV -129, Bhagwati Vihar, where the incident took place. Police machinery came into motion on getting information on 09.03.2009 at around 09.10 a.m. from informer recorded vide Daily Diary (DD) No. 18A that his daughter has been set on fire by her family members. Vide DD No. 20A recorded at 09.40 a.m. Duty Constable at DDU Hospital informed that Mamta had been admitted by her husband in burnt condition in the hospital. The investigation was assigned to SI Dilip Singh who along with Const.Rajesh went to the spot and met the landlady - Anita who informed that the victim residing on the 2nd floor had got burn injuries and had been taken to the hospital by her husband. The Investigating Officer went to DDU Hospital and came to know that the victim had been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. Application (Ex.PW -5/A) was moved to record the victim's statement; she was declared fit to make statement. PW -21 Sh. Manjeet Singh recorded her statement. A case under Ss. 498A/307 IPC was lodged by the Investigating Officer. On 14.03.2009 on the intervention of Ms. Jyoti Dharmendra, posted at Delhi Commission For Women, second statement of the victim was recorded by PW -21 Sh.Manjeet Singh, SDM. Efforts were made to find out the perpetrators of the crime. On 17.03.2009, the appellant was arrested. The victim expired on 12.04.2009 in the hospital. Post -mortem examination of the body was conducted. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The other accused persons were also arrested subsequently. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On 25.05.2009 the investigation was entrusted to PW -19 (Insp.Payare Lal). On 30.06.2009 the complainant Sodan Singh, along with his wife Mithlesh joined the investigation and assisted the Investigating Officer to prepare an extract of CD received by him through 'dak'. It contained the statement of the victim recorded in the hospital. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant and his family members - Ajay Singh, Kamlesh and Deepak Kumar for commission of offences under Ss. 302/34/108/304B/498A IPC. The Trial Court charged the appellant and his associates for committing offence under Sec. 304 Part -I IPC. By an order dated 17.07.2012 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 704/2009, this Court ordered to proceed under Ss. 302/34 IPC. Accordingly, a charge under Ss. 302/34 IPC was framed on 07.01.2013. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined 29 witnesses and relied on various documents. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The Trial Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties and on minute appreciation of the evidence acquitted Ajay Singh, Kamlesh and Deepak Kumar of the charges. It is relevant to note that State did not challenge their acquittal. The trial resulted in appellant's conviction under Sec. 304 Part -I IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Admittedly, the victim was married to the appellant on 15.08.2008; it was a love marriage against the victim's parents who had lodged complaint against the appellant for kidnapping her (Mamta). The victim - Mamta was interested to marry and live with the appellant. Document executed at the Police Station at pages 649 and 651 (of Trial Court Record) reveals that the victim had given her consent to live with the appellant. Both of them had thereafter, lived at the matrimonial home for about two months. Since the relations with in -laws were strained, they both started living in a rented accommodation where the incident took place.