UMESH ALIAS DEENDAYAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dtd. 31/07/2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Judge Chhindwara in S.T.No.186/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo LI with fine of Rs.1,000.00 and under Sec. 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default stipulations.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for proper adjudication of the case are that on 13/04/2013 at about 11:30 a.m.deceased Lalita Bai in a burnt condition reached at Police Station Tamia, District Chhindwara, and made an oral complaint. She stated that she, along with her husband Umesh, her child Navin and her uncle had gone to explore Patalcoat. After visiting Patalcoat, they had food. Thereafter, her husband attempted to consume liquor and when she restrained him, a quarrel ensued. She further alleged that at about 3 :00 a.m., her husband and uncle unsuccessfully attempted to kill her. Subsequently, after some time her husband poured acid or some other inflammable substance on her, set her on fire and threw her into a ditch. Thereafter, her husband fled from the spot along with the uncle and also took away her son Navin. After some time, she somehow managed to come out of the ditch and reached near a water tank. Two girls, namely Basanti and Kavita, then took her to the police station.On the basis of the said oral complaint, the police registered Crime No.54/2013 under Ss. 307, 326- B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant and other co-accused who known as topi wale uncle. After registration of FIR, the deceased was sent for medical examination. She was medically examined on 13/04/2013 at about 11:50 a.m. As per the MLC report, she had sustained approximately 82 ""90% burn injuries. Considering the seriousness of her condition, the police commenced investigation, recorded statements of witnesses, seized relevant articles, and arrested the appellant.

(3.) During investigation, the memorandum of the appellant under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and on his instance, the dead body of a child aged about six years was recovered in a decomposed condition.