DINESH GAUTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in sessions case No. 180/93 on 31st March, 1995 convicting the appellant under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for causing murder of his wife Rekha.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present appeal stated briefly are that, deceased Rekha wife of accused Dinesh was knitting sweater in her house at Rawat Bhata where she was residing in the Heavy Water Colony Block No. 20/115 and was visited by her in-laws also at the relevant time. It is alleged by the prosecution that on that day, she was abused by her in-laws and her husband Dinesh and then Dinesh poured kerosene over her and put her to fire, as a result of which burning she died. First Information Report was lodged from the hospital and on the basis of that, the sessions trial was started after completion of the investigations by Police of Rawat Bhata.

(3.) Eighteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case who proved during their deposition several exhibits/documents. On appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused in the matter of murdering his wife Rekha is proved beyond reasonable doubt and he therefore, proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid The order of conviction is assailed in this appeal on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal which we will consider one by one after re-appreciating the evidence on record. As re-appreciation and re-marshaling of facts is necessary while exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, one opportunity of attacking the evidence on record is always given to the accused. Accordingly, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record for assessing correctness of the impugned order in light of the reassessed oral evidence.