VIJAYA BABU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge made in S.C. No. 99 of 2008 dated 12.6.2009 where by the accused was found guilty of offence under Section 3021.P.C. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows:

(3.) While canvassing the case for the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the lower Court had erred in relying upon the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses and the dying declaration said to have been given by the victim and had wrongly convicted the accused. He would further submit that the motive stated by the prosecution was feeble as the quarrel in between the husband and wife is natural in every house and it could not constitute a motive for murder. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.I cannot be accepted as he was not present and other witnesses had not spoken about pouring of kerosene by the accused on the victim and lighting fire on her. He would also submit that dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in Exhibit P-7 was a tutored one and the victim was influenced by P. Ws 2 to 5 to depose against the accused. He would again insist the Court that obtaining of thumb impression by the police and the toe impression by the Doctor from the same victim due to burn injuries would go a long way to show that the dying declaration obtained by the Judicial Magistrate without getting any of the impression from the victim lady would make it invalid. He would further submit that the trial Court had not found that the victim was in a sound state of mind to give the dying declaration in the absence of examination of the Doctor who was said to have been present at the time of recording dying declaration. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to see that the accused was having two children at the age of 4 years and 11/2 years respectively, while imposing the sentence against him. He would submit that it is a fit case for acquittal and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court has to be set aside.