RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dtd. 26/12/2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, District Khargone in Sessions Trial No.14/2011 whereby they have been convicted u/s. 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,0002000.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 50 days' RI. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, on account of committing murder of Vikram in prosecution of common intention by setting him ablaze after pouring him kerosene oil.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

(3.) Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not assailing the findings on the merits of the case at this stage. He submits that even if the dying declaration of the deceased is believed to be true as it is, the incident took place in the house of appellants No.2 and 3. The deceased himself came there and started disputing with his wife Jasodabai. Although all the appellants are not admitting that they set him ablaze but the dispute suddenly arose and in a heat of passion, they committed the crime. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants called Vikram in their house with a pre-intention and common object to set him ablaze. Therefore, the offence will not travel more than offence u/s. 304 Part I of the IPC because it falls under Exception 4 of Sec. 300 of the IPC. The appellants are in jail since last more than 11 years with no criminal past. Appellant No.3 Jasodabai has three children who have now reached the age majority and in order to settle their life, she is liable to be released on bail. It is further submitted that deceased's own son viz. Raju (P.W.6) and (P.W.8) have not supported the prosecution case. According to them, the deceased was insane and was a heavy drinker, therefore, he committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil which he brought with him in the house of the appellants . There is no eye-witness in this case, therefore, the offence be converted from Sec. 302 to 304 Part I of the IPC and the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.