STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KUMBHAR DHIRAJLAL MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of I.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : The incident took place on 8-1-1983 at about 8-45 a.m. in the house situate at Nirmal Nagar, Street No. 5, Bhavnagar. The accused is the husband of the deceased wife. They got married just three months before the incident. The accused and deceased got separated themselves from the parents of the accused only before a week of the incident and started to stay at the above place. On the day of incident at 8-45 a.m. the deceased asked her husband that why he had sold away her Kandora (waist-lace). The accused replied that for paying rent he had sold away the Kandora and getting annoyed he brought 'Tawetha' (iron instrument used for cooking purpose) from the house and started to beat the deceased with it. Thereafter, he poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set her on fire by throwing lighted match stick. On seeing the blaze the accused tried to extinguish the fire. In that process he also got burn injuries on his hands upto wrist. Girl Gita went to the house of Popat Bhura - cousin brother of the deceased and informed him in presence of Arvind Mohan that 'Masi is burnt'. They immediately came to the house of the deceased. They found the deceased lying wrapped in a quilt and the accused was sitting beside her. The deceased Hansaben told them that 'she is burnt'. Popat Bhura went to the house of Laxman Naran - father of the deceased and informed him that Hansaben was burnt. Laxman Naran and other relatives except Manjulaben - mother of the deceased Hansaben came to the house of deceased. Laxman Naran removed the deceased and the accused to the hospital in an ambulance van. They were admitted in the Barns Ward. In the hospital Hansaben stated before Dr. Joshi, who was the Doctor on duty in the hospital, that she was burnt by her husband by pouring kerosene on her body. Dr. Joshi treated Hansaben and found that she had received extensive burn injuries of 65% and her condition was serious. Dr. Joshi on phone informed P. S. 0. Laskari of Bhavnagar 'A' Division Police Station that Hansaben was burnt by her husband (the accused) by pouring kerosene and the accused also received burn injuries. The said information was recorded in the station diary of the Police Station at 9-50 a.m. P. S. 0. Laskari sent police yadi to Head Constable Patel to record the statement of Hansaban. Head Constable Patel, who was on duty at the hospital, recorded the statement of Hansaben. Before Head Constable Patel also she has stated that she was burnt by her husband by pouring kerosene on her body. After recording the statement of Hansabsn, Head Constable Patel sent for Executive Magistrate Mr. Mathur for recording Dying Declaration of Hansaben. Mr. Mathur came to the hospital at about 10-30 a.m. and recorded the dying declaration of Hansaben. Before him also Hansaben stated that she was burnt by her husband by pouring kerosene.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has observed in paragraph-27 of his Judgment that "It is also one of the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence that even if slight doubt arises on account of discrepancies, infirmities or incorrectness in the alleged version of the deceased, then the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused". In case of Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & Ors., reported in 1990 1 SCC 445 the Supreme Court has explained the meaning of 'Reasonable Doubt' and held that doubt must be real and not fanciful. It is held by the Supreme Court that.....