STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GIRRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Madhya Pradesh, vide this application under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 12/09/2018 passed in ST No.324/2012; whereby, the Trial Court recorded the acquittal of respondents for the charge under Section 302 / 34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution was set in motion with the information (Ex.P/9) received at P.S. Ambah by SHO on 23/04/2012 from Civil Hospital as to that Rekha (since deceased) was brought by one Rajjan Singh in burnt state, whose statement (Ex.P/11) was recorded by Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6). The report resulted in recording of Dehati Nalish (Ex.P-17) on 23/04/2012 at 14:45 wherein it was stated by the victim that she lives in village Gunj Bandha and is illiterate and does household work and has two sons and one daughter. That her Devar (brother-in-law) Girraj, Devrani (sister-in-law) Shikha caught her and grandmother-in-law (Ajia Sasu) Bittibai poured Kerosene over her body and lit fire for not doing household work; they locked her in the room. On her call for help, her husband who was lying outside the house opened the room and other persons also came who doused the fire. Her entire body got burnt. Later, her father Rajjan Singh and Ramesh and others took her to hospital at Morena. That FIR (Ex.P/13) was recorded vide Crime No.165/2012 for offence under Section 307 / 34 IPC. Spot map (Ex.P/14) was prepared. MLC (Ex.P/10) was obtained. Dying declaration (Ex.P/11) was taken at 09:40 am on 23.04.2012 by Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6). That on 27.04.2012 it was informed by Dr. Yogeshwar, RSO Surgery Department, JAH at P.S. Kampoo that during treatment Rekha W/o Santosh who had 30 to 35 per cent burnt injuries succumbed on 27/04/2012 at 12 pm. Consequently, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. After necessary investigation, the challan was filed. The respondents abjured their guilt. Prosecution, to bring home the charges, examined 12 witnesses; however, none of them were eyewitness. Ramesh Singh (PW-7), prosecution's star witness, said to be present at the scene of crime, did not support the prosecution story. This witness also denied as to the statement of Rekha (deceased) (Ex.P/11) being recorded in his presence. He also stated that when his signatures were sought outside the hospital there was no thumb impression on Ex.P/11. Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6) who recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P/11) did not record his satisfaction that the injured was in a healthy state of mind. No certification to that effect was given, which was admitted by him in his testimony. In paragraph 5 of his testimony in Court, Dr. M.R. Sharma (PW-6) stated:

(3.) Thus, at 09:45 am on 23/04/2012 the victim had sunk or was critical. If that was her condition at 09:45 am, the prosecution owed an explanation of her being in fit state of mind at 02:45 pm when the Dehati Nalishi was recorded. Though there was enough time with the prosecution to have summoned the Executive Magistrate, but there was no plausible explanation therefor. The Trial Court found that the match-stick seized from the scene of crime as FSL report (Ex.P/23) did not have the trace of kerosene. It further found that the prosecution failed to establish as to 100 ml. kerosene when was left in the seized glass chimney; how much kerosene was there in it which could have been poured over the body of Rekha. All these major contradictions and omissions led the Trial Court disbelieve the prosecution story who found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, it recorded the acquittal of respondents.