LAWS(MPH)-2010-6-34

SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On June 24, 2010
SANTOSH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.8.2005 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Mhow, in S.T. No. 416/2004, whereby Appellant Santosh has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that deceased Seema was married with the Appellant and they were having three children. Appellant was liquor addict and after consuming liquor, used to beat his wife. P.W. 16 Kaloo father of the Appellant had sold his land and deposited the sale proceed in the Bank in the name of his wife and children. On 21.8.2004 in the night at 8 PM Appellant demanded money for purchasing liquor from his wife deceased Seema which was refused by her thereafter Appellant picked up a quarrel and while saying that he will kill her poured kerosene oil on her person and lit fire by match stick. On hearing out cry, cousin brother of Appellant P.W. 11 Ramchandra, P.W. 3 Madanlal and P.W. 14 Shakuntala wife of Ramchandra reached on the spot and took the deceased to M.Y. Hospital Indore. Seema was admitted in burn unit of the Hospital. Telephone Operator of the Hospital sent information to Police about admission of deceased which was recorded in daily diary vide Ex. P/16 and its copy is Ex.P/16-C.P.W. 30 Station House Officer Indramani Patel of Police Station Simrol after receiving information from Hospital, reached to the Hospital, along with P.W. 21 Head Constable Ajab Singh and recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/ 36 at the instance of deceased. On the basis of this Dehati Nalishi in Police Station FIR Ex.P/27 was recorded by P.W. 26 Head Constable Moorad Khan. Police registered the Crime No. 255/2004 for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On 22.8.2004 her dying declaration Ex.P/29 was recorded by Executive Magistrate P.W. 24 Rajkumar Haldhar. During the course of treatment she died in the Hospital on 25.8.2004. After receiving information of death, Police of Police Station Sanyogitaganj registered Merg No. 0/281/ 2004 vide Ex.P/35 and also sent intimation to concerned Police Station where offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. On completion of inquest enquiry vide Ex.P/2, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and the same was conducted by Dr. S.K. Dadoo P.W. 17. The post mortem report is Ex.P/15. Investigating Officer seized various articles from the spot coupled with clothes of the deceased and also prepared spot map Ex.P/4. Appellant was arrested on 29.8.2004 through arrest memo Ex. P/5. He was sent for medical examination and examined by P.W. 25 Dr. H.R. Verma, who gave MLC Report Ex.P/32. The bed head ticket and other documents relating to admission and treatment of deceased were seized by the Police. Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the case and on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant refuted the charges and his defence was that his deceased wife was not willing to live with her in Village Datoda Tehsil Mhow, and wanted to shift in Indore Town. On this issue she was issuing threat to him that if they will not shift to Indore, she will do something and ultimately in the night of 21st August, 2004 ablazed herself after pouring kerosene oil. He also stated in his statement that he tried to save his wife wherein he sustained burn injuries. Appellant has not examined any witness in defence whereas prosecution has examined as many as 34 witnesses and adduced in all 46 documents to prove its case. Learned Trial court finding the Appellant guilty convicted and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.

(3.) We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully.