SANJU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dtd. 02/04/2011 passed in S.T. No.327/2010 by the Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) whereby finding the Appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_60_LAWS(MPH)10_2022_1.html</FRM>

(2.) In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 02/11/2009 at around 8-9 pm when the deceased Balu @ Balram S/o Balwant was sitting in his room after having dinner, at that time, the Appellants Sanju S/o Motiram, Krishna S/o Motiram and their father Motiram S/o Bapuji came to his house and started assaulting him and thereafter Krishna took the chimni which was lying there and poured its kerosene over the deceased Balu and put him on fire and ran away from the spot. The deceased came out of the house and his neighbour Santosh S/o Ladliram put of the fire by putting a blanket (Gudadi) and also informed the ambulance. The deceased was taken to M.Y. Hospital where the treating Doctor informed the police station Sanyogitaganj and the dying declaration of the deceased was also recorded, however, he succumbed to burn injuries on 09/11/2009. A marg under Sec. 174 was registered and his postmortem was conducted. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the Appellants and they were tried before the Trial Court where after recording the evidence, the learned Judge of the Trail Court has convicted the Appellants as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants has assailed the aforesaid judgement on the ground that the dying declaration is not reliable piece of evidence as the deceased was already having a grudge against the Appellants and was in the habit of drinking heavily which fact has also been substantiated by the statements of the father and brother of the deceased and his wife Ramkalabai (PW/4) has not supported the case of the prosecution and PW/8 Prembai who is a neighbour of the deceased who has also stated that the deceased has immolated himself by pouring kerosene. PW/2 Santosh who has not been declared hostile and who has accepted in his cross examination that when he went to save the deceased, he was excessively drunk and also used to drink every day and has also admitted that he did not smell kerosene or did not see the kerosene spilled on the floor and has also admitted that the deceased has committed suicide in front of his after pouring kerosene over himself.