VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF M. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - 1. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging judgment datd 14.12.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali District Guna in Sessions Case No. 353/1996, whereby the Sessions Court has convicted the appellant-accused for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The Sessions Court has also directed that if the appellant-accused fails to deposit the amount of fine, then he will have to undergo another imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant Vijay Singh was residing with the parents of her wife Urmila. On 6.9.1996 he demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- from his wife Urmila on the ground that he has spent some amount for getting services for her in "Anganwari". Urmila refused to give money. Therefore, he picked up some utensils to take with him. The deceased objected to it. Thereafter, the appellant poured kerosene on the body of Urmila and put her on fire. Urmila died due to fire injures sustained by her. The report of the incident was lodged with the police station. After investigation charge sheet was filed. After committal of the case charge under section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant. The Sessions Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the same has convicted the accused for commission under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment.

(3.) THOUGH in the memo of appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence, but at the time of argument his challenge is only about the nature of offence committed by the appellant. The learned counsel does not dispute the fact that the appellant poured kerosene and set Urmila on fire. But, Shri N.P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant has confined his argument only on the sentence part of the judgment. According to him, considering the facts proved against the appellant offence under section 302 IPC is not made out and only offence under section 304 Part I of IPC is made out. He also submitted that the accused has already undergone sentence for more than 10 years and 6 months imprisonment. Hence, he may be released on the sentence already undergone by him.