OMWATI BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved with the judgment dated 3rd October, 2005 rendered by second Additional Sessions Judge, guna, in S. T. No. 266/2004, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants, wherein the learned Judge has convicted them for commission of offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 342 of IPC imposing imprisonment for life along with fine of rs. 250/- for the first offence and rigorous imprisonment for three months for the second offence. The learned Judge has also convicted appellants Devendra and Jagdish for commission of an offence punishable under section 450 of IPC imposing 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 250.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that with regard to an incident happened on 25th August, 2004 at about 9 a. m. at the residence of complainant haribhagwan Raghuwanshi situated at village Nimra, Police Station, myana, Distt. Guna, an FIR was lodged by complainant Haribhagwan that his wife omwati is having illicit relationship with appellant Devendra Singh Raghuwanshi. Despite sufficient efforts. she did not come on the right track. On 25th August, 2004 at about 9 a. m. with intention to kill him, appellants devendra Singh and Jagdish (the brother of Omwati) caught hold of him and. appellant Omwati poured kerosene and ignited the same. Consequently, he sustained burn injuries. Crime No. 252/2004 was registered against the appellants at aforesaid police Station for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. The complainant was admitted in District Hospital, Guna, who died during treatment on 14th September, 2004. Thereafter offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was also added. After completing the investigation, challan was filed, the case was committed and thereafter the appellants have been tried and convicted as aforesaid.

(3.) SHRI N. P. Dwivedi, the learned advocate for the appellants, at the very outset, has submitted that although the appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment on various counts, including the merits, yet for the present, he wants to press the same only on the point that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC is not made out. The injured died after 20 days during treatment and cause of death was septicemic shock due to excessive burn alongwith its complications. The injuries have not been opined as sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In these circumstances, neither the intention, nor the injuries appear sufficient on which commission of murder can be deemed to be proved. At the most, the appellants can be convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Shri dwivedi has also drawn attention at the statements of Dr. S. K. Malhotra (DW-1) and satish (DW-2) and submitted that Dr. S. K. Malhotra, psychiatrist, (DW-1) has stated that mental status of the deceased was not okay. He had remained under his treatment he has proved the relevant entries of his register Ex. D-l. Ex. D-1 indicates that on 28th June 2001, the deceased was treated by this doctor. Witness Satish (DW-2), who is the son of the deceased, has stated that the deceased burnt himself.