LAWS(MPH)-2012-9-132

RAJARAM ALIAS RAJA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On September 25, 2012
RAJARAM ALIAS RAJA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 6/12/1996 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in ST No. 152/1993, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine amount, he was to undergo for one month's simple imprisonment in addition.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short, is that the deceased Sunita Bai had expired on 24.5.1993 at about 9:30 PM in the night due to burn injuries which were caused at her house situated at Village Kohka (Police Station Lakhanwada District Seoni). The marriage ceremony of the deceased Sunita Bai took place with the appellant in the past. On 25.5.1993 an intimation was given by Dr. B. P. Namdeo to the Police Station Seoni that the victim Sunita Bai, who was admitted in the Government Hospital, Seoni had expired, and therefore a case was registered by the Police Station Seoni. A panchnama-lash was prepared and the dead body of the deceased Sunita Bai was sent for the postmortem. Dr. A. K. Saravgi (PW-9) had performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Sunita Bai. He found that she sustained 95% burn injuries on her body, and therefore she died due to such injuries. Since the appellant was residence of Village Kohka which was in the jurisdiction of Police Station Lakhanwada, therefore the case was registered at the Police Station Lakhanwada. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Seoni and ultimately it was transferred to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni.

(3.) The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that the deceased was kept with comfort. No cruelty was done with the deceased. It was a case of accident. The deceased did not commit the suicide. The appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. In defence, Kunjilal (DW-1) and Lekhram (DW-2) were examined.