STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHUNNILAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a State appeal against the acquittal of respondent Chunnilal of the charge under Section 302 1. P. C. and respondent Smt. Nihaldevi, the wife of . Chunnilal of the charge under section 302 read with Section 109 I. P. C. and respondent No. 3 Narbadeshwar Tripathi of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 114 I. P. C.

(2.) Respondent Chunnilal is a tenant of the house which belongs to the brother of the deceased Madanlal. The prosecution case is that Madanlal used to realise rent from the accused Chunnilal. The further prosecution case is that on the night of 14-4-1971 the deceased demanded rent from the respondent Chuunilal in the presence of Tripathi. This was not liked by the respondent, who asked the deceased to go and sleep. The further story is that the deceased then went away and while he was sleeping in the lawn outside his house at about 12 or 12. 30 a. m. in the night he found himself burning and got up and saw Chunnilal, his wife Smt. Nihaldevi and respondent Tripathi and also saw Chunnilal's wife bringing a glass full of oil which Chunnilal is said to have sprinkled on him. He started shouting and the respondents are said to have run away inside the house. His shouting brought forth people near about. P W 9 the Inspector of Police was also said to have come there, who rang up the fire brigade and the police station. The deceased was thereafter removed to the hospital. A dying declaration Ex. P/8 which formed the first information report, was recorded by Raghuveer Singh, the prosecution witness, at about 10 30 a. m. A subsequent dying declaration was also recorded, which is Ex. P/3, by the Magistrate P. W. 2 at about 12 or 12. 40 in the after-noon. The deceased died after 5 days on 10. 4. 1971. After investigation the police sent up all the three accused for trial. . -

(3.) Respondent No. 3 Tripathi in his statement under Section 342 Cr. P.C/ denied that he was present at the time of the quarrel. According to him, he had gone Chunnilal's house when he did not turn up for work and having found that he had been taken to the Police Station he went there and was detained by the police. Chunnilal denied, having any hand in the crime. According to him, he came oh hearing noise outside, but did not even see Madanlal and that thereafter he was going to the Police Station to lodge a report because he had been told that Madanlal had been burnt. The trial court found itself unable to accept the dying declarations or the oral evidence given in support of it and has acquitted all the three respondents. The State has thereafter come up in appeal to this Court.