SHAKUNTALA MAHATAWAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th August, 2002 and 19th August, 2002 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991/76 of 2001, whereby, the present appellants have been punished for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It is a case of the prosecution that on 27th April, 1997 at about 05:45 p.m., the informant, namely, Titu Devi (later on expired) gave fardbeyan to police at Poddar Nursing Home, Jamtara that on 27th April, 1997 at about 10:00 a.m., when she was in her house, her motherinlaw, who is appellant no. 1, poured kerosene oil and her fatherinlaw, who is appellant no. 2, was abetting her and sister of her motherinlaw had caught her, thereafter, her motherin law set fire on her cloth and threw the same on her body. Thus, she was set at fire by these appellants. She also stated that her husband was not in the house. The motive has also been stated by Titu Devi in her fardbeyan before the police at Nursing Home that she had no issue after marriage and, therefore, the appellants and the sister of her motherinlaw were insisting that she must go at her paternal house. They were also quarreling with her and, therefore, they set fire on her. Dying declaration was also recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. The case was investigated. The statements of several witnesses were recorded. Chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to Sessions Court and on the basis of evidences on record, given by the witnesses, the learned trial court has punished the appellants for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are also punished for three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1991/76 of 2001, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. There are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.