"'f^ b .^ 'flQ ' „',&-;";•' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 1! APPELLANT: Samaru, S/o Sunderia! Binjhwar, aged about 41 years, Occupation Carpenter, R/o Village Bhanhar, Police Station Bharamkeia, Distt. Raigarh. RESPONDENT' State of M.P. (now C.G-), Through District Magistrate, Raigarh. {Appea! under Sectipn 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] Present; Mr. K.K. Pandey, counsel forthe appellant. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. T.P. (27-1-2009) 1. This appea! is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 19 November, 1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.232/97, whereby learned Sesslons Judge after holding the appeliant guilty for commission of offence under Section 307 of the !.P.C.,sentenced him to undergo R.l. for seven years. 2. Judgment of conviction & order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without any cogent & re!iab!e evidence, the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant, who used to visit the house of Ratnabai (since deceased), on 22-9-97 at about 2 O' clock in the mid night entersd into the house of Ratnabai and poured petrol upon her while she was steeping and set her abiaze. She cried for he!p and tried to catch hold of the appellant, but the accused/appeilant ran away. The witnesses had seen the accused while he was running from the spot. The F.1.R. was iodged within four hours vide Ex.P-1 . Plain soil and the soil containing smell of petrol, burnt pieces of clothes & ropes were seized vide Ex.P-2. Burnt piece of sari was recovered vide Ex.P-3. iatnabai was sent for medical examination and 35-40% burn iniuries llilliil '\ *.j !s were found on her body yide Ex.P-4. Her dying declaration was recorded vide Ex. P-5. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-7. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangarh who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sess'on- 5. 'n order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as eight wltnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him^and pleaded innocence & false impllcation. 6. After affording the opportunity pf hearing to the parties, learned Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7- ! have heard 'earned counsei for the pari:ies and perused the impugned judgment as also fhe record ofthe tria! Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although the appellant has suffered the sentence awarded to him, but he is.challenging the legality & propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence. According to the case ofthe prosecution, the incident took place on 22-9- 97 at 2 O' clock in the mid night wjiile the deceased/injured namely, Ratnabai was sleeping in her house, somebody has poured petrol on her body and set her ablaze- It is djff'icult for Ratnabai or any witness to see t'nat who has poured petrol on her and set her ablaze. Conjectures & surmises are not sufficient for drawing inference for commission of offence. The prosecution has not proved its case beyond a!! reasonable te. 9. Gn the other hand, tearned counse! appearing on behaif of the State/ respondent supported the judgment and submitted that the prosecution hss proved its case beyond al! reasonable doubts. The conviction is based on lega! and reiiable evidence, 10. !n thls case, defence has not disputed pouring of petrol and causing burn injuries to Injured Ratnabai at 2 O' clock in the mid night. Defence has also not disputed that Ratnabai receiyed 35-40% burn injuries. Defence has disputed that the appeilant has not caused any burn injury to the injured or that the appellant has not poured petrol and set her ablaze. 11.1n order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, 1 have examined the material avaiiable on record. In this case, the F.1.R. hs.s been lodged by injured Ratnabai vide Ex.P-1. She was examined by the medical expert vide Ex.P-4 and her dying declaration was recorded by the doctor vide Ex. P-5 in which she has specifically stated that the accused has burnt her, same was recorded at 7.40 a.m. i.e. within six hours of the incident. iefore recording her eviderfce she died and therefore, the prosecution was not able to examine her before the Court. 12.Dying declaration Ex.P-5 was recorded by Dr. Govind Sahu (PW-4) on 22-9-97 at about 7.40 a.m. within six hours of the incident. Dr. Govind Sahu (PW-4) has categoricaily stated in his evidence that he has recorded the dying declaration of Ratnabai in question-answer form in which sh& has stated that the accused/appeliant had poured petrol on her body and set her ablaze on the ground of some previous dispute. He has denied the suggestion that he has not recorded any dying declaration of Ratnabai. 13.Ramla! (PW-1), who had stayed in the house of Ratnabai on the date of incident, has deposed that on the fateful day st about 2 O' clock in the mid night while he was sleeping, Ratnabai shouted and told that Samaru has poured petrol over her, whereupon he saw that Ratnabai vi'as burning and Samaru was moving in the courtyard with light and after opening the door, Samaru fled away from the spot. Gambhir Singh, who was also sleeping, also heard the shouts, and both tried to save Ratnabai. Viilage Kotwar & other persons came to the spot. Ramial (PW-1) went to Police Station Baramkela and lodged the report vide Ex.P-1. 14.Ghasiyaram (PW-2) & Murlidhar (FW-3) had deposed that they were called by the Kotwar In the house of Ratnabai at about 2-3 a.m. where they found Ratnabal in burnt condition andshe toid that she was burnt by the accused/appellant. Smell of burns & petrol was coming out from the spot. 15.0efence has cross-examined these witnesses in detail, but it has not been abte to elicit anything in their cross-examination to dlscredit their testimony. Their evidence has been supported by.the dying declaration recorded by Dr. Govind Sahu (PW-4) vide Ex.P-5. After one & half %?^?g' ,.;5.at? •^:^.S'ia 4 months ofthe incident, Ratnabai died therefore, her ocular evidence has not been recorded by the Court. 16.Presence ofthe accusedin the house of Ratnabai at about 2 a.m. in the mid night, which was abnormai, has been specifically stated by Ramlal (PW-1) who was present in the house of Ratnabai. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the accused that as to why at about 2 a.m. in the mid night he was present in the house of Ratnabai. Ratnabai had immediately told the inciflent to Ramlal (PW-1) and other witnesses Ghasiyaram (PW-2) & Murlidhar (PW-3) who have been cailed by the Kotwar in the house of Ratnabai. The evidence adduced on behalf ofthe prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the accused/appellant is the person who has poured petrol overthe body of Ratnabai and set her ablaze. Statements of the witnesses inspire confidence and the same is trustworthy. Causing burn injuries by pouring petrol and settine a woman ablaze that too of 35-40% shows the intention ofthe accused. 17.After appreciating the evidence ava.ilable on record, the'Court below has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Conviction of the appellant is based on iegal, clinching & reliable evidence. The Court be!ow has not committed any illegality or irregularity in convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 307ofthel.P.C. 18.As regards the question of sentence, the appellant had attempted to commit the murder of Ratnabai and as a result of such injuries, lastly she died after one & half months of the incident. The manner in which the offence has been committed shows the cruel intention of the accused/ appeilant. The appeilant has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for seven years. AIShough, he has suffered the sentence, he does not deserve any sympathy. Sentence imposed upon the appellant is just and proper. 19.For the foregoing reasons, ! do not find any force in the appeal, same is !iab!e to be dismissed and it Is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge