ABDUL RAZZAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.P.C . has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.01.1998 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Session Trial No. 97/1994 whereby the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304-II of IPC (5 counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in each count. Default stipulation has also been imposed by the trial Court.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 30.03.1993 at Village Magaspur, on the occasion of marriage of a girl, at about 9 to 10 PM when all the villagers and children were gathered for welcoming the Baratis, the accused was playing fire breathing and was pouring kerosene on the dung cake (Kanda) with cane. The villager asked him not to do so but he did not prevent himself due to which the cane caught fired and the accused threw the same onto the children standing over there. Resultantly, Pappu, Guddu Sharma, Shama, Shaheed, Shahid, Shahrukh, Salman, Aslam, Ravi, Shahnaz, Sitara, Sahid S/o Hareen Bagas, Tajju, Shamim, Bhuri, Raees, Babu and Naushad Khan were scorched in the fire. During treatment, Guddu, Bhuri Bee, Pappu, Raees and Shahid Khan died.

(3.) On the information, the police has registered the FIR vide Exb. P/16 under Sections 285 , 337 , 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. against the appellant/accused. The injured were sent for medical examination and their medical reports are annexed in the case as Exb. P/3 to P/15. The police has seized the cane and other articles vide Exb. P/18. Post mortem report of the deceased children namely Pappu, Raees, Bhuri, Guddu and Shahid were exhibited vide Exb. P/48 to P/52. The Police has filed the charge-sheet for the same offence as mentioned in the FIR. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has framed the charge of Section 304-II of I.P.C. and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence, hence, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial and in furtherance to it, the trial Court examined 18 prosecution and 2 defence witnesses as well as recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court found him guilty for the offence as aforesaid.