^n^T^r W^ TF^TW??I 5h^l<=h ....^;" '^ 'S^ r^l'qi^d), ^>Tnyt^, fcf^l'y^< ^W^ *^|cb ^c'Y.:..a.:M9.:..M..U^?.^... •^200 3ni(yr xrsTcg? (4c<fri<s<<sr) ^H^R 'Mf^a 3T1^T APPELLANT CM^(<n<ifl<i TTR^ff'^f i^Q <r^^i< ir-SJ^FT vyn^i RESPONDENT (Appeai under Dlvisjon Bench : Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Shadoo & HoRibie_IVlr. Dhirendra Klishra, phyam Sundar, Son of Parmeshwar, aged ^bout 23 years, Residsnt of Viliage IMargoda, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur. C.G. -Versus" |State of C.G. through S.P. Siiaspur. ^ection 374(2) ofthe Cr.P.C.) LJJ 05.07.2007 Shri R.K, Jaiswai, counse Bilaspur in Session Trial No the offence under Sectlons 304] undergo RJ. for iife and to pay a| to further undergo Imprisonment] -and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/", | imprisonment for six months res| for the appeiiant. Shri G.D. Vaswani Govt. ^dvocate for the State. The appeal is dlrected alainst the judgment of convjction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2001 p^ssed by First Additional Sessions Judge, 339/2000 whereby learned Flrst Addftional Sessions Judge after holding ti|e accused-appeijant guiity for commlssion of 1(8) and 498 (A) of the !PC, sentehced him to Ifine of Rs,2000/N, in defauit of payment of fine for six months and to undergo R.l. for 2 years h default of.payment offine to "further undergo oectively. Hov^ever, co-accused Satin Bai was acquitted. The case of the prosecu|lon in brief Is that Savita was married to the accused-a&peliant three years FJrior to the date of the incident, i.e. OS.12.1S99 the day6n vvhich Savita was adrhitted in the hospitai in burnt condition and she succumbed to burn iniuries onl 11.12.1999 at 18.15 p.m.. Therefore merg GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2001—50,000. XI-HC—78 ^T^T^T^i^" °^^T 3Tf^T'i^N' 3^^T '^WW^, ^Tfl^41^, fs|0t^^< ^l^dl shNlcb .Cy.....^.,/v.<,>..:..4^./^?^..,W5, 200 3?i^?r ^^ (li^l^<8y) ^^TW^fi^^nt^ -4 intimation was sent from the hl p.m, The postmortem was ^ doctors opined the cause of 27.05.2000, father of Savita the Superintendent of PoiiceJ 'mother used to demand do.\l reguiariy subjecting Savita to Savita dled on account of bi rsgistered on 01.06.2000. t^spitaj to the SHO, City Kotwa!!, Biiaspur at 19.40 ^onducted on the body of Savita in which the ^leath of Savlta is burn injuries. ThereafSer, on rtamely Bharat Lai lodged a report Ex-P/1 before Bilaspur to the effect that the accused and his /ry, In order to meet the demand they were |;rue!ty and thereafter in suspicious circumstance irn injuries. Based on the report the cas-e v^as After compietion of the of J.M.F.C., Biiaspur, who in Bjiaspurfrom where iearned F| the case cn transfer. The prosecutlon in ord| examlned • 14 Vvltnesses. St^ under Section 313 of the Cr? against them in the prosecutjo^ Aft-er hearing the argurr Additionai Sesslon Judge However. he acquitted co-accu We have heard Shri G.D. Vasv/ani, Govt. Advocate ^OTfepft^ 1RTR^ff "^?,1^^ <Fai^i< ^^i^i^nt^r nvestigation, charge sheet was flied..in the Court ;um committed the case to the Sesslons Judge, rst Additiona! Sessions Judge, Bllaspur, recejved l^r to estab!ish the charge against the accused ^tement of the accused persons \¥ere recorded j.C. in whlch they denied the materiai appearirsg evidence. lents of the respectlve counsel, the iearned FIrst tonvicted the accused as aforementloned. jsedSatin Bai. R|.K, Jaiswai, counsel for the appeilant and Shri jfor the State. 3^cT •^l^l^^, t$Tf1'HJI<S, fs)<yl>l^^< ^INdl *NI<sb^:.a:Mo.-.M^/.^.Q(. TH, 200 ^n^?r,5FT R<ii+ 'cCT 3:n^T $h^l4) \. ^s^ ^WF (4c<fl<s*<^) ^cTTW ^Tf5^T ^H^T -^i Having heard counse! for| evidence avaiiabie on record, ^e prosecutson has utteriy falted| accused/appellant for the foilowjnjg (1) It Is admitted position that and she succumbed to the burn CM^f<rt^1'l "RF^ff '^T f^T3t <f^^j< '^'3^H3TT^r the parties, having perused the record and are of the considered opinion that the in estabiishing the charge agalnst the reasons: Savlta sustalned burn Injuries on 06.12.1999 njuries on 11.12.1999 in the hospitai. Perusal of the inquest report reveals th^t father of the deceased, nameiy, Bharat Lal v/as present and in his presen|;e oniy inquest report v/as prepared. In his evldence he has stated that he adnnission of his daughfer in the| Inquest report, Bharat Lal has no| on fire by the accused. P.W»6, that she came to know through and was admltted in the hospjta] was admitted In burnt condltiorl disclosed to her that ths accuseld gave beating to her on the ground that the vegetabie cooked by Savita wa^ vsgitable is not tasfr^, then he si^ the accused said he vvili comml body, he set her on fire. If this ^ Lai when the Inquest report wa$| these v^itnesses under Sectionl 15.06.2000 vvhereas ths incide?1 giving beatlng to Savita set her jmmediateJy on that time. On the| ^ame to know about the burn injury after the hospital and immedlateiy went there. In the t made any cornpiaint regarding settlng Savita Uttara Bai, sister of the deceased also stated ^ewspaper that Savita sustained burn injuries She reachcQ' Dharm Hospital where Savlta She was talking. On enquiry her ^ister not tasty. When Savita replled that if the lould send her to her parents' piace on which t her murder, after pouring kerosene on her ?as .made known to Uttara Bai, then she might disclosed to' her father Bhar|at Lai. Why that fact was not raised by Bharat > being prepared? IVIoreover, statements of 161 Cr.P.C. Ex-D/3 was recorded oniy on |t took piace on OS.12.1999. Accused after pn fire, why that statement was not recorded icontrary, as per the evidence of S.D. Mahant, GRP -^^-nao^ 3^cT ^(^10^, ^TH^^KS, ^^1^^< ^l^dl <bNI<4»c^.:.a.:^o.-.M&./..^.QL 3TT^?T TI^? ( lic<fTl<£<<^) •^ 200 3^TT^r,'^T'ftpri^' ^8TT31T^T ^NT ^T^fePsft^T 'WTClT ^f fe^ if^^K ^ <3tf^H 3TT^[ A.S.I, on the fateful day he was St|b Inspector of Poiice Kotivaii, Seepat and he registered the merg intimation Ex| sustaining burn injuries white cpc| lodged. He further stated that h| -P/10 as the deceased died on account of ^klng meai. Thereafter the finai report was B made enquii'y from neighbourhood of the deceased. On his enquiry, not|iing was detected that Savlta died under susplcious drcumstances. Therefjsre, the crirne was not registered. The dying declaration was recorded by the ^xecutive IVIagistrate on 07.12.1999 In which Savita categoricaiiy stated that ^hen she was cooking vegetable, her sari caught fire and she sustalned turn injuries. No ailegation regarding the demand of dov^ry and seSing her on fire v/as ieveiled in the dying declaration. •Doctor at 4.45 p.m. gave certificat^ that patient was abie to give her statement. Even Dr. M. Sen (P.W-3) who aljtended Savita in the hosplta! has also sated that Savita was admitted In the biprning unit, she sustalned burn injuries up to 60-65%, she was conscious and injuries which were present on h meai. Now coming to the report deceased on 23.05.2000, in the fi| to know that the accused after report v^as iodged. There is de| whatever has been stated by Utta| in this report, Bharat La! has subjecting Savita to cruelty on report was iodged nor any compii has been mentloned In the report evidence before the Court. Uttan [repjying the questions. He stated that the ^r body can be sustalnsd while cooking the I Ex.P/1 iodged by Bharat Lai, father of the j-st instance, the sister of the deceased canie b^ating Savita set her on fire that is why thls |ay of six months in iodging the report and [|-a Bai has not been mentioned in this report, Inentioned that the accused was reguiariy actcount of demand of dowry', but neither any ^int was made by these p.ersons. Whatever Ex.P/1 that has not been proved by cogent ^ Bai P.W-6 has categoricaiiy stated that the GRPRJ— XI-HC—78 3TI^T^ Wi^ ^sff isn^i ^RNr Bin^l Sinhl ^T^f '^ww^, ^Ntet^, {«(<?'>t-y^< WICT gnw. ^:.A^..:. W^ 200 3nit?r ^^i ((idH^<^) ?^?!Wi?f^3?n^r -J"-l deceased disclosed her that learned Addltionai Sessions Ju ofthelPC. •easoifis For the foregoing reasoi| ^he charge agalnst the accuse| beyond reasonabie doubt . under Sections 498(A) and 30^ in the result, the appea] upon the accused/appeilant urj set aslde and he'is acquitted ^ triai Court, the accused is in liberty forthwith, if not required Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge <^s^t<n<Ili ^H<A* ^? fe^ <M<$K ^^iRm^n^T ihe was set on flre by the accused. whereas ige convicted the accused under Section 304(8) »,the prosecution has utterly faiied to establlsh j under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of the IPC Therefore, convlction of the accused/appeiiant (B) of the iPC cannot be sustalned. succeeds. Convlctlon and sent©n<sssimposed |der Sections 498(A) and 304(8) of the !PC are |f the said charges. As per the judgment of the d^tention since 05.06.2000, therefore, he be set at |3y any other case. Sd/- Dhirendra MEishra Judge