SOMOTI AND ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the judgment dated 9th August, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 (Fast Track), Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 193/2001, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for commission of offence under Ss. 302 IPC and 302/34 IPC, respectively to suffer life imprisonment and acquitted other two accused, namely, Bhoora and Dinesh. The prosecution story is that on 28 June, 1999 in the evening at about 6.30 PM deceased Anita was abused by the appellants using filthy language and appellant No. 1. mother -in -law of deceased told her that she will arrange second marriage of his son Dinesh, husband of the deceased. While Anita was sweeping the courtyard, her mother -in -law, appellant No. 1 came from behind and poured diesel oil on her body. She demanded and got the match box from the appellant No. 2. She was put on fire. She suffered 85 to 90 percent burn injuries. She was taken for treatment to Dr. Bharat Meena, who runs private clinic at village Baseri. He treated the victim for two days and thereafter referred her on 30th June, 1999 to Government Hospital, Dholpur, where she was admitted and treated by Dr. Adarsh Saxena. PW6, Balbir Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW 14 came to the hospital and recorded the statement of victim on 1.7.1999. This statement was sent to the concerned Police Station, Baseri, and on the basis of this statement FIR was registered and investigation commenced.

(2.) During investigation, the police prepared the Site plan, Ex. P. 6, recorded the statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. The Prosecution presented the challan against four accused before the Court. The trial Court framed charges against appellant Somoti for commission of offence under Ss. 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 IPC and against appellant Guddi for commission of offence under Ss. 498A, 304B, 302/34 and 201 IPC. Accused Dinesh and Bhoora were charge sheeted for commission of offence under Ss. 498A, 304B and 201 IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove the charges. Out of 14 witnesses 5 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Rakesh, PW 2 Man Singh PW 3 Kamal Singh, who have been cited in the challan to prove the occurrence, PW 8 Daya Ram, witness of site plan and PW13 Asha, sole eye witness to the occurrence, were declared hostile. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution and hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges and thus, convicted and sentenced the appellants to suffer life imprisonment. Other two accused, namely Bhoora and Dinesh were acquitted of the charges.

(3.) Appeal has been preferred by the appellants mainly on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and that the trial court though recorded the findings that there are discrepancies in the prosecution case yet recorded conviction relying upon the dying declaration, which in law has no legal evidentiary value.