GODHA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 187/1995 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that on 20.06.1995, the deceased Kanchanbai, wife of the appellant had been sleeping with him. In the night between 20-21.06.1995, the appellant poured kerosene oil over his wife( deceased), so she got up. At that time, the appellant lit the match stick and set her on fire. The deceased took sickle (Hasiya) and chopped off the penis of her husband. Due to burning of the body, she began to cry and jumped into the nearby Amraiya Nala and ceased the fire. The report of the incident was lodged at the police station. The deceased was admitted in the hospital where her dying declaration (Ex.P-1) was recorded by the Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar). The deceased was died on 22.06.1995 in the night. The police registered a criminal case against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and after investigation was completed filed a charge-sheet before the Court. The Court framed charges under section 302 of IPC against the appellant and after completion of the trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of life with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

(3.) Mr. Manoj Bhargav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on the dying declaration which is not reliable. He further submits that for the aforesaid offence, the evidence under section 302 of IPC is not made out. The learned counsel in alternative argued that the offence against the appellant could be made out under section 304 Part -I of IPC.