/^•^ XI-HC-78 +11^rtl aiTTT^ s^ '^i<)iciii, »T(1ti'i6,fciciiyy .&..A...l^QL / ?T7 200 7 Sti^i 4a»('^cit^l!"5'iT) 3[i^?r ERT f^iR; (iqT3TR?rst'ti|t») ltsftlil^^ ?^nwtrf?tT3T^r APPELLANT: (Injail) - Vdrsus - RESPONDENT: Present: Miss. Nirupama Bajpai, counsel forfie Mr. D.K.Gwalre, Additional Public appellant. P|rosecutor for the State/respondent. Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.< Hon'ble Mr. Dhireoclra L.C. BHADOO. J. Heard on M.(Cri.)P.No.; delay in filing the appeal as well as appeal. It has been mentioned in th^ that copy of the judgment was take|n the appeai, therefore, the appellant ^irafCT'ft^ wrofif fei^ riSi%K ^srf^lTSII^T Prafult Pandey atias Raju Aged about 40 years, S/o Parasram Pandey, R/o Village: Pondi, Police Station: Takhatpur, District: Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) . Bhadoo and Mishra, JJ. ORALJUDGIWENT (Delivered on ^1st Mareh. 2007) 387/P007, application for condonation of admission. <t>n As per the Office report, ther^ is delay of 2,333 days in filing of this application for condonation of delay by relative of the appellant for filing f/as under the bona fide belief that the P.T.O. XI-HC-78 Hl^^l ai»TT9i 3^ •*]i<iicf-M, a-cny'Ko, (siciiuy ^^..^....[^.l. ^ 200 7 311^1 4flch (yi(^sl^iiT) sn^TEiiTfeN; OTT3n^?Tai*iI°h ?^I1W;HfN'a;n^T *i'i)fd''(1-f mTMffffei<Q ^w, ^STf^Sn^T appeal has been filed, but tater on, no appeal has been filed. Therefor^, In this applicatfon, name of the relat|ve given has not been mentioned, as High Court about filing of the appe^l Registry of the High Court about th^ mentioned. Therefore, no - suffi^ condonation of deiay in fi(ing the apteal 5months23days.' sjvhen he enquired from the High Court, s, there is delay in filing of the appeal. te whom copy ofthe judgment was when the enquiry was made from the and who made ttie enquiry from the filing of the appeal hasalso not been ;ient ground has been shown for I, that too of 2,333 days i.e. 6 years On merit also, we have he|ard perused the judgment and record of|the learned counsel for the parties, trial Court. >th It is the case of the prosecutilsn that in the intervening night of 7 & ijght Mahendra Kumar, brother of the |s fire in the house, therefore, Kadi 8m June, 1998 afabout 12 mid n accused, raised cries that there Shankar (PW-9) and other persons where accused/appellant Prafull & Kadi Shankar (PW-9) saw that Arun^' house and was burning. The accus]ed Mahendra Kumar informed that the| time, Aruna was already dead and Shankar called Prafull who came extinguish the fire on which the poured on the body of Aruna on should try to extinguish the fire wit|i brought clothes and extinguished th^ went to the house of Mahendra Kumar his wife Arumwere also residing. i (^. a's body was lying near the gate of the ;us]ed was inside the house. On enquiry, accused is inside the house, by that tfiere was no motion in ttie body. Kadi |out of his room, he asked Prafull to ac|cused brought water in a bucket and Which he asked the accused that he clothes not with water, the accused fire. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *II*IMI aifl 'SSf "MI<llc<'M, ^Tny'lri, fsldiuy ^ .C^..fV.-..f.^./. ^ 200^7 311^1 4ach (^c|i^G)^l£T) 3T1^rqiTR-fi°b (raTSd^TgiIIR? g?cITWTlf?(T3n^T After reporting the matter t<| came on the spot. Inquest on th|e body Ex.P-2 was prepared in the presence of Bhagwati Bai, Batd^u Prasad, Ram Sahay, Manharan Nirmalkar, Shanti Bai - mother of tti When the body was turnect it-was| burnt. Post-mortemwaseonductedl Smt. S. Jitpure, they pre|fered the| tii'iilt-i'fl-i iitii'iT?''tec^t'<lai't-4i< ^sfl^TR'an^r the Police, the Investigating Officer e deceased and Virendra - brother of the deceased. It has been menti^ned in the inquest report that whole body was burnt, tongue was protru^ing and same was between Uie teeth. seen that back portion was not fully by Dr. V.K. Soni, Dr. G.P. Naidu & Dr. post-mortem report Ex.P-5 and said that no definite opinton can be give]n regarding cause of death. Dr. V.K. Soni (PW-4) has been examined wh|o has stated in his evidence that smell of kerosene was emanating from th 100%, there were no blisters on the 9 he has stated that in this case, ^ body, there were burn injuries up to body, the burn injuries were up to 2'nd & 3 degree, tongue of Uie dece^sed was protruding and same was between the teeth. There were no c]arbon particles in the trachea. In para 'arious parts were congested and on account of asphyxia death occurre^ He has further stated that generally tongue protrudes on account of asp^yxia. In the light of above inques|t report, post-mortem report and the evidence of Dr. V.K. Soni, if we p|eruse the evidence of Kadi Shankar (RW-9) who has stated in his evidei|ice that at about 11-11.30 in the night he heard the sounds of Mahendral there is fire, therefore, he went to| saw that Aruna's body was lying Prafull is inside the house. In the Kumar, brother of the accused, that the house of Mahendra Kumar, as Mahendra Kumar and accused Prafjjll are residing in the same house,he pn the gate, it was burning and the accused was inside the house. Oi|i enquiry, Mahendra Kumar said that mean time, Chhedi, Ram Sahay and P.T.O. XI-HC-78 +<1*1MT StitlT^) ~^s( ^ww^, STny'itf, fa^i'y^ .&..A:. ^RT 2007 @ 3ll^l 4a»h('ic't^si(,'a') 3T^ST sfiT f^tNi (rarsn^Tshtiiti SRirwflfNsn^T thfat other neighbours also came, by motionless. He called Praftitl'who Prafull to extinguish the fire on bucket and poured on the body o' should try to extinguish the fire brought ctothes and extinguished th time, Aruna was already ctead and _^ lcame out ofthe house'afSd rie asked wfiich the accused brought water in a Aruna, he totd the accused that he clothes not with water, the accused ife fire. with The accused was pr^ent ir| was burning. He came out of the Shankar (PW-9). In his statement accused has not explalned the susteined burn injuries, he has simt?ly been falsely implicated. When h4 special knowledge that how Aruna) preferred to remain siient. Therefc|re, lying on him under Section 106 of accused is also admissible in evidehce sustained burn injuries up to 100%) person to raise cries while burningj Aruna was burnt has not been explafned by evid^nce Coupted with the above fact^, V.K. Soni he has stated in his emanating from the body, the burn| parts of the body were congestecj, between the teeth, no carbon partiitles para 9 he has stated that symptoms| evidence of Kadi Shankar (PW-9) ^raWW wi-raY ff te^t TfeRK ^sf^gira.TT^T the house, when the body of Aruna i|oom only after he was called by Kadi Mnder Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the circumstances under which Aruna stated that he is innocent and has was in the house it was wlthtn his sustained burn injuries, but he has !, he failed to discharge the burden the Evidence Act. Conduct of the when Aruna was burning.aiW she therefore, it was not possible for any why he remained in the house when him in any manner. >, if we scruBnize the evidence of Dr. that there was smell of kerosene 1 injuries were up to 2 to 3rd degree, |, tongue was protruding, same was were found in the trachea and in of death shows asphyxia. As per the v^hen he went to the place of incident, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 <41+1MI 9>W^i 3^T "41<i|l<-t<<, OTily'16, (sfi'liyy ^.&A..i.^/....^2oo7 3)1^1 4a'*> (i^cit^si^iT) sn^rw' craT3T^TsfiI[N; ^;-••...::„. ^'':- :i;r^^:i?^^^;§2i^, s^arw Bf?(T 3n^r the body of the deceased was mo1 suggestive of the fiact that the decei thereafter she was set on fire. The was not fully bumt, this also shows why the back portion was not fully bi Therefore, we are of the COH; fire after her death due-to as|?hyxia not explained any thing, as*'such commission of offence under Si cireumstances, we do not find any the trial Court. delay as well as on merit, at tt of. ^l-^Id^ ^WV\\ ^ ^^ <l'3l-(-^t< ^aif^TTsn^r [ionless. All these circumstances are ased died on account of asphyxia and inquest report shows that back portion that the body was motionless that is ^irnt. ^idered opinion that Aruna was set on The accused was in house, he has , he has rightly been eonvicted for ection 302 of the I.P.C. tn the llegality or Infirmity in the judgment of In the result, this appeal is li^ible to be dismissed on the ground of e admission stage itself. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, M.(Cri.)P.Nos|386/2007 & 387/2007 stand disposed Sd/- L.C.Bhadoc judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge