DALIP MASIH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the IPC against the judgment, dated 29.11.2005, of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, vide which the appellant was held guilty and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that Smt. Suman Kanta and her husband Sukhdev Masih were admitted in the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala on 15.6.2003, as a burn case. Both these persons were undergoing treatment in the Zonal Hospital for burn injuries. On 22.6.2003, a telephonic message was received from Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Dharamshal, at Police Station, Dharamshala that one lady, who is admitted in the surgical ward, wants to get her statement recorded. On receipt of this information on telephone, a Police Officer from Police Station, Dharamshala visited the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, filed an application before the Medical Officer as to whether the said lady is fit to make her statement and on taking the opinion from the Medical Officer that the lady was fit to make statement, the statement was recorded by the Police Officer at Zonal Hospital, Dahramshal on 22.6.2003 at 7.00 a.m. In the said statement, Smt. Suman Kanta alleged that on 15.6.2003, at about 8/9 p.m., she was taking meals and her father -in -law Dalip Masih (appellant) told her that he will keep his son Sukhdev Masih only and will not keep her in the house. Her husband was sitting in the courtyard on a cot and the appellant threw kerosene oil on her person and her husband cried that daddy she will be burnt in fire and prevented his father but the appellant threw burning lamp on her person. Smt. Suman Kanta was having her nine month old daughter in her lap and her daughter and she caught fire and she threw her daughter in the plants outside. Her husband threw water on her clothes and tried to extinguish the fire and she does not know who extinguished the fire on the person of her daughter. Some boys from the village gathered there and her husband also tried to set himself on fire proclaiming that when his wife and child have got burnt, he will not live. It was alleged in the statement that her husband threw kerosene oil on his person and the boys from the village gave water to them and tried to extinguish fire by putting a blanket and bed sheet on them. Those village boys also arranged a van, her daughter and her husband alongwith her father -in -law were brought to the Hospital for treatment. They were kept in the Shahpur Hospital for 1/1 -1/2 hour and they were given first aid and then they were sent to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala where they reached at 2/2.30 a.m. This statement was sent to the Police Station, Dharamshala on the basis of which the case was registered and the investigation was carried out. The said Suman Kanta died on 25.6.2003 while her husband died on 24.6.2003 and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge and the case was assigned to the learned trial Court, who tried the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Smt. Suman Kanta and her husband, which resulted in conviction and sentence of the appellant, as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant were that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove their case that the first version given at the time of admission in the hospital by Smt. Suman Kanta and her husband was that it was an accidental case of fire and they had never alleged earlier at any point of time that they were set on fire by the appellant. It was further submitted that the brother of the deceased Suman Kanta got the facts twisted and the alleged statement was got recorded though the injured never made any such statement and there are various factors which prove that the said statement made by the injured cannot be relied upon which shows that the prosecution had failed to prove their case and as such the findings to the contrary are liable to be set aside. The infirmities pointed out in the prosecution case by the learned Counsel for the appellant shall be referred below while discussing the evidence led by the prosecution.