LIAKAT ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Liakat Ali, appellant, against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the order sentencing him to life imprisonment thereunder passed by the court of Shri T.S. Oberoi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant used to sell fruits near Moti Cinema, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The case of the prosecution is that on August 4, 1982 the appellant returned home, being house No. C-136, Jahangirpuri, Delhi late in the night, namely at about 12.30 mid-night. The appellant asked his wife Aliya deceased to serve food to him. Aliya (old him that no food was available for him at that late hour. The appellant got annoyed thereby. He gave a beating to his wife Aliya deceased. He then sprinkled kerosene oil on her person and set her to fire. On hearing the cries of Aliya, Zain-ul-abdin (Public Witness 1) and Hassan (Public Witness 2), the two neighbours of the appellant, reached the house of the appellant. They found Aliya on fire in a corner of the room of her house and the appellant sitting on a cot in the same room. The house of the appellant is a one-roomed house with a courtyard in front thereof. The door of the court-yard opens in the street. On seeing the said two persons the appellant got up from the cot and joined them in putting off the fire from the person of Aliya. Aliya was then removed to the JPN Hospital by one Siraj-ul-khan, also a neighbour of the appellant. Dr. D.K. Dewan (Public Witness 4) attended to Aliya in the 'Casualty' or the hospital. The deceased is alleged to have told Dr. Dewan that her husband forcibly sprinkled kerosene on her and lit fire to her. This statement of the deceased was noted down by Dewad in his M.L.C. report Ex. Public Witness 4/A while recording the history of the patient. Aliya was later shifted to the Burn Ward of the hospital. ASI Sukhbir Singh of police post Jahangirpuri on receipt of the information about the case from the constable attached to the Casualty of the hospital reached the hospital. He, however, found Aliya as unfit to make a statement. Liakat All, appellant, had also gone to JPN Hospital. He was given first-aid in respect of the burn injuries as sustained by him which were declared to be 12% He was also interrogated by the police. A case under Section 307 of the indian Penal Code was first registered against the appellant, which was later converted to the one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the death of Aliya at about 10.30 pm. on August 5, 1987.

(2.) . The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code . recorded after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence denied that he had poured kerosene oil on the person of his wife Aliya, or set fire to her. He stated that on August 4, 1982 he returned late in the night at about 11.00 p.m. after being free from his work of sale of fruits. However, before returning: io his home he had gone to the house of his adopted sister one Rani by name where her husband and son-in-law were also present. He got raakhi tied from her. As he could not go to her house in the morning, having left for his work early in the morning, be was having his food at Rani's house, that he saw some persons running towards his house. On inquiry he learnt that fire had broken out in his house. He rushed to his house. He then tried to put off the fire himself and in that process sustained extensive burns on his person and became unconscious. The appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.

(3.) . At the trial of the case Zain-ul-abdin (Public Witness 1) and Hassan (Public Witness 2), the two prosecution witnesses of the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case regarding the main occurrence, namely, that when they reached the house of the appellant they found the appellant sitting on a cot whereas Aliya was on fire in a corner of the room and about Aliya having told them that the appellant bad poured kerosene oil on her and set her to fire. They slated to the effect that when they reached the house Aliya was on fire and the appellant was trying to extinguish the fire. The main or almost the sole evidence of the prosecution against the appellant is the dying declaration of Aliya deceased as recorded by Dr. Dewan (Public Witness 4) in his medico legal report Ex Public Witness 4/A duly proved by him and his statement as PW 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the statement of Dr. B.K. Dewan, Public Witness 4, and took the view that he had correctly recorded the statement of the deceased Aliya at point A to A in his MLC Ex. Public Witness 4/A. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was also satisfied that this dying declaration of the deceased was convincing and the conviction of the accused appellant could be based on that evidence alone. He also found some support to the case of the prosecution by the statements of Zain-ul-abdin, PW 1 and Hassan Public Witness 2, which according to him, have both stated that they had first heard noise of a quarrel between the accused and the deceased Aliya coming from their house and it was soon thereafter that they saw some flames coming out of the house of the accused. He also took note of the fact that the deceased was not removed to the hospital by the accused himself and was taken to the hospital by a neighbour one Siraj-ul-kban at the asking of Zain-ul-abdin,PWI. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discarded the suggestion of the defence that it could be acase of either commission of suicide by Aliya or her having caught fire accidentally and held that from the facts and circumstances as brought out on the record the case of the prosecution stood proved beyond a reasonable doubt.