NARAYANSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-9-2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore in S. T. No. 452/1999, by which the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with defaulting clause of imprisonment for four months SI.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case against the appellant is that on 3-10-1999 in the night at 2 - 2. 30 AM the appellant Narayansingh set fire to his wife Laxmibai after pouring kerosene oil inside his residential house situated in shivshakti Nagar, Indore. She was taken for treatment to M. Y. Hospital by her brother-in-law Dalpati (Jeth) and mother-in-law (Kesarbai ). Police of Police station, MIG, Indore received information from M. Y. Hospital to this effect which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha No. 178 vide Ex. P-l3 and its true copy is P-13/c proved by Shyamveer Singh (P. W. 9), Head Constable. Police reached at M. Y. Hospital and got recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P-8) by Executive magistrate Jitendra Singh Pawar (P. W. 6 ). Laxmibai was admitted in burn unit and she died because of burn injuries on 7-10-1999 at 10. 25 A. M. in the Hospital. MIG Police upon receiving information of her death recorded intimation No. 68/99 (Ex. P-16/c ). Police prepared inquest of the dead body (Ex. P-10) and sent the same for post-mortem examination. Post-mortem was performed by Dr. N. M. Unda (P. W. 16) and Dr. T. S. Thakur. Post-mortem report is Ex. P-12. On the basis of the information Crime No. 746/1999 under Section 307 of the IPC was registered on 3-10-1999 at 5. 05 A. M. vide Ex. P-21 by Subhash Chandra, ASI (P. W. 12 ). Investigation was done by SHO Jorsingh Bhadoria (P. W. 11) and subhashchandra, ASI (P. W. 12 ). P. W. 12 also recorded statements of deceased laxmibai (Ex. P-20) signed by Laxmibai. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

(3.) THE appellant abjured his guilt. According to him, he was falsely implicated. He pleaded defence of alibi and examined three witnesses in his defence whereas prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and got proved 24 documents from the witnesses. The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.