STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BHAGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 26.3.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 26/07, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, has been acquitted.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant Amar Chand was the resident of village Koli-Behar. He was a carpenter. Deceased Nirmala was his sister. Her marriage was solemnised with accused Bhagat Ram about 11 years back in accordance with local customs. A son and a daughter were born out of the wedlock. On 23.1.2007, during night time, complainant came to know that Nirmala had been admitted in Kullu hospital in serious condition. He alongwith his mother went to Kullu hospital. His sister had sustained burn injuries. She was unconscious. Both of them remained in the hospital throughout the night. His sister regained consciousness at about 8 AM in the morning. On questioning, she disclosed to them that on 23.1.2007, at 7.00 PM (sic. 7.00 AM), her husband Bhagat Ram had sprinkled kerosene on her person and thereafter she was set on fire. Deceased Nirmala also disclosed that at the relevant time, her two children were present in the house. Her husband used to take liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to administer them beatings. His sister had sustained burn injuries on her face, abdomen, back, both hands and legs. FIR was lodged. Partially burnt clothes of Nirmala were taken into possession by the police. Nirmala succumbed to burn injuries in the hospital on 6.2.2007. She was subjected to post-mortem examination by Dr. Paljor. Sealed parcels were deposited with police Malkhana Kullu by the police from where same were sent to FSL Junga. As per report, traces of kerosene were found on the pillow, clothes and hair of deceased. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. He stated that he did not set his wife on fire. He was fetching water from tap outside the house. He heard cries of his son. He rushed inside the kitchen. He extinguished the fire on the person of his wife with pillow. He asked his son Harish to inform his sister about the incident. One witness was examined from the defence side. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal.