RAM SINGH ALIAS PAHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.211/92 by Ram Singh @ Pahari and Criminal Appeal No.218/92 by Lalu Ram @ Pandit are directed against the judgment and order both dated 11.8.92 passed by Sh.S.C.Mittal, Additional Sessions Judge whereby both of them have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.l,000.00 each. In default of payment of fine, they are to further undergo RI for one year each. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief , is that on the night intervening 31st October and 1st November,1986 at about 1.00 A.M.Dayal Chand, duty Constable Public Witness -5 conveyed information on telephone vide DD No.18-A (Copy exhibit Public Witness 22/C) that Mohd. Rafiq has been admitted in hospital in burnt condition. On receipt of copy of that DD No.18-A, ASI Sukhbir Singh, Public Witness -19 alongwith constable Devi Singh reached L.N.J.P.Hospital and obtained the MLC of Mohd. Rafiq whereon doctor had opined that he was unfit for making statement. Again on 1.11.86, Public Witness -19 alongwith another Constable Mahesh Kumar Public Witness -15 reached the hospital and on Mohd. Rafiq's being declared fit for making statement by Dr.Surender Kumar, he recorded his statement exhibit Public Witness -19/A. In that statement, Mohd.Rafiq has stated that about 15 days back his wife Husan Ara Begum @ Babli, aged about 25 years, solemnized marriage in Court with Ram Singh and on 31.10.86 Ram Singh invited him to his jhuggi and he also told him that Husan Ara Begum would stay with him if he gives Rs.500.00 P. M. to her. Thereafter, all four of them, namely, Ram Singh, Husan Ara Begum , Pandit and he himself took liquor and meat together. After an altercation Ram Singh poured kerosene oil on him and he ran away. Ram Singh followed and set him on fire with a matchstick at about 11.00 P.M. Hatim, a neighbouring shopkeeper extinguished the fire and got him admitted in the hospital. This occurrence was also witnessed by many other persons. Public Witness -19 after making endorsement exhibit Public Witness -19/B on statement exhibit PW 19/A sent the same through Public Witness -15 for registration of the case to the Police Station and on the basis thereof, FIR(carbon copy exhibit Public Witness 22/A) was registered against Ram Singh, Husan Ara Begum and Pandit accused under Section 307/34 IPC. During investigation Public Witness -19 recorder the statements of the Public Witness s. and recovered the can containing kerosene oil used for committing the crime, from jhuggi No.70 belonging to accused Ram Singh. He also prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to S.I.Hari Ram, Public Witness -12 who arrested all the three accused from bus stand Yamuna Bazar on the pointing out of Hatim, Public Witness -1. Mohd. Rafiq expired on 3.11.86 and,therefore, the case was converted to one under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code Inspector M.D.Mehta, Public Witness -21, prepared the Inquest Report exhibit Public Witness -21/A, brief facts of the case exhibit Public Witness 21/B and also application for post mortem exhibit Public Witness -21/E and sent the body of Mohd.RaFiq,deceased, for post mortem. He further prepared the rough site plan exhibit Public Witness 21/H and filed the challan after completing the investigation against the accused.

(3.) In the statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code ., plea taken by accused Ram Singh is that Mohd.Rafiq, deceased, often remained ill and he used to beg to earn his livelihood and was. not in a position to maintain his wife. She complained to Budhi Pandit, Pradhan, Nanu Ram and others in the locality. All of them advised Mohd.Rafiq to put an end to the domestic strife by maintaining his wife. However, Mohd.Rafiq got annoyed from the bastiwalas and his wife and committed suicide. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Budhi Pandit.