RADHEYSHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road convicting the appellant of offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 13.10.1994, deceased Smt. Kalawati was admitted in the Government Hospital at Abu Road in burnt condition. On receiving the information from the Doctor, PW -17 Bheem Singh, S.H.O Police Station Abu Road reached at the hospital and recorded the statement Exhibit P -15. Smt. Kalawati disclosed that she was married about seven to eight years back with the accused Radheyshyam. Her husband used to beat her after consuming liquor. On the date of incident, she was suffering from fever. Her husband threatened her after consuming liquor. He took up quarrel with her. He poured kerosine on her and lit fire. Her distress call attracted the neighbours. She was taken to the hospital in a tempo. Her two years old child was sleeping in the house. The said statement was recorded in presence of Dr. Madanlal. On this information police registered a case and proceeded for investigation. Mst. Kalawati died on 19.10.1994 and as such offence Under Section 302 IPC was added.

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction it is contended by Mr. B.S. Rathore, learned Counsel for the appellant that as far as the first dying declaration Exhibit P -15 is concerned, Dr. Madanlal has only signed at the bottom of the statement and has not given any certificate if Smt. Kalawati was in a fit condition to give statement. The learned Counsel has also criticized the Tehrir' Exhibit P -18 given by Dr. Madanlal. As regards the second dying declaration, it is submitted that PW -11 Dheeraj Kumar did not obtained any certificate from the Doctor if Smt. Kalwati was in a fit condition to give statement. It is thus submitted that the learned trial court has committed error in relying on both the dying declaration i.e. Exhibit P -15 and Exhibit P -13. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court.