JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein is to the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.10.2002 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.41 of 1996, State Vs. Jagdish Chandra and two others. The said trial pertains to police station Munsyari, District Pithoragarh wherein Jagdish Chandra (husband), Bhawani Dutt (father -in -law) and Smt. Manuli Devi (mother -in -law) all were tried together for the offences u/s 302/34, 304 -B/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that no offence u/s 302 IPC was made out so he passed the order of acquittal for that offence, whereagainst no appeal has been preferred by the State.

(2.) INSTEAD of Section 302 IPC, learned Sessions Judge has found the offence, to the nature of section 306/34 IPC, proved against the appellants. He also found the appellants guilty for the offences u/s 304 -B r/w Section 34 IPC as well as u/s 201 IPC. That apart, the accused persons/appellants were also found guilty for the offence u/s 498 -A/34 IPC but it is pertinent to mention that no charge was specifically levelled for this offence. The maximum punishment awarded by the court below was ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a further direction that all the sentences will run concurrently.

(3.) THE genesis of the prosecution case, sans unnecessary details, is that deceased Smt. Kamla Pandey was wedded with accused Jagdish Chandra on 11.12.1990. She lost her life within seven years of the marriage as a consequence of burn injuries. Her body caught fire on 31.8.1995 while she was present in her matrimonial house. The defence of appellants is that her Nylon Saree caught fire when she had just sprinkled the kerosene oil for igniting fire in order to cook food for the family. She was severely burnt but the appellants could not carry her for any medical treatment outside the house because it was the rainy season and the roads were blocked. The place of incident is quite a remote one from Tehsil Headquarters Munsyari. So, they were constrained to get her treated by some Compounder/Pharmacist while keeping her lying in the home itself. She was kept home almost for three days and she breathed her last on 3.9.1995. Thus, it was argued by learned counsel on behalf of appellants that, there was no deliberate failure on the part of his clients in the road block position to get her treated in some government/ private hospital so as to save her life.