STATE OF H P Vs. NEEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions trial No. 38-N/7 of 1994 dated 31.3.1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) This case has some rather peculiar facts. Deceased Sumer Chand was married to Darshani Devi, daughter of accused Neem Chand. According to the prosecution, though initially the marital terms between the spouses were happy later the wife deserted the husband and more often than not went to her parental house against the wishes of her husband. The deceased felt that it was his father-in-law who was responsible for his marital problems. The deceased went to the house of his father-in-law to complain about the behaviour of his wife and also to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home. Further according to the prosecution before going to house he purchased a bottle of kerosene oil from one Dharam Pal and sprinkled the kerosene oil on his body in the house of the accused. Till this stage, there is virtually no dispute between the parties. However, as per the prosecution the intention of the deceased was only to pressurize his father-in-law and when he was threatening his father-in-law that he would immolate himself the father-in-law lit a Biri and threw the burning match-stick at the deceased and due to this act the kerosene oil caught fire and the deceased got completely burnt. He was taken to hospital but died the next morning. The short question which arises for decision is whether it is the accused who lit a Biari and threw the lighted match stick at the deceased or not.

(3.) At the outset, it may be stated that even as per the case of the prosecution there was no motive for the accused to commit the offence. There was no preparation on behalf of the accused to commit the offence. According to the prosecution story, it was the deceased himself who purchased the bottle of kerosene oil. It was the deceased who threw the kerosene oil on himself. According to the prosecution, the only other person who was present when the incident took place was the brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Shri Ram Murti i.e. son of the accused. He was not cited as a witness.