—.^K. CF0000057666 sslas IH THE HI6H COOBS OF MADHYA PRADESH S tff JABAjLPOB. Ca.APPEAI, NO* 92^> OF 3.989. (^3-r*-Ranwatiba± wife of Bhukhanlal Ghandrakar, fj^p^"^ agect 50 years, • !.A/ * • ' ' ' .••'' • ' ' ' 2. Ranshilateai wife of Bhukhaalal Chaadrakar, aged 20 years, .|j;|^<tT^3. •Ste^assa-s/3 SK3hasiran Cbandrakar ased :c^ 55 years' : , • Ml R/o BeraehaP.S.-Mabasafiund Dtstt. Saig-ar (MP). APBSUfWSS -(S» JMXJ' VS. The State of Madhya Pradesh . . . . fiES.POMDgKT. r^ CR.APE>£M,_t3HDEfi_:SEC.374(2} SS ?HE: eR,.?.e. •;Sil .;;:1.3 ii.ai ^" HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Appeat No.988/1989 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Ramshila Bai YS. State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) PRESENT: - Shri J. K. Shastry, learned counsel for the appellant. Shrj Ashish Shukla, G.A./Addl. Public Prosecutor for ttie State. WALJU&GMENT (Delivered on 30-03-2006) 1 This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05-10-1989 delivered by Shri K.L.Kori, Ist Additionat Sessions Judge, Raipur jn Sessions Case No.256/1986 whereby the txppellant was convicted under Section-498-A & 307 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years & 5 years respectively. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is thatKunti Bai PW-9 was married to one Sendu Ram in the year-1990. Ramshila Bai is the sister of Sendu Rom. Kunti Bai did not like Ramshita Bai coming to stay with them. She had gone with Ramshila Bai to Village- Bemcha where the parents of Ramshila Bai resided. Ramshila Bai was onnoyed on this behaviour of fanti Bai. It is alleged thaton 05-05-1986 at about 08.30 P.M., the appellant Ramshila Bai threw kerosene on the body of Kunti Bai while co-accused Ramvati caid feju Ram set her on fire. Kunti Bai sustained 35 to 40% burn injuries. Kunti Bai wias admitted in the hospital at Mahasamund and thereafter she was further shifted to D.K.Hospital, Raipur. One Shri J.Ekka, Executive AAagistrate recorded the stortement of U3A3 p3UJS3U03 Sj a)l^ UO jog i.+un^ 6ui++^ j.o uoj4.o6s||p 31)4. so JD^ os +BL|4. papuai.uoo SDM +1 'X|+SCT| -uoi+nsascud 3141. Xq pap^osaj +ou som 'iDg i+uny ^o uoi+iuoi^ap 6uiXp aij4. pap^ooaj SADIJ o+ pa6a||D si oi|M 'at.Dj+siSDyv aAj+noaxg ^o +uauia(.D+s ai^ •pazjp+jdsotj SWM sijs 3|!t)M aouau^nsoo a^ +noqo auoAw o+ 4.uauia(.d).s AUD aAi6 4.ou pip sijs +oi^+ pai.o+s soi) sip uiajaiiM ^ y 91-wod ui 6-Md !oa !+un)l ^q p3((.31pIM+U03 /|4.3a^lp Sl (-IMOd Ul ^-/Wd log I+DAJB<J ^o +uaiua4.n<.s ai|4. +OIH. pan6jo osp SDM +i •ajij. +i|6rtco Xjuappns a&ios M^ 'pOO^ 6UI>|003 SDM SljS3|ll|*»+Dl(4. lUjl) p|o+ poi) jog j+un^ +014). paj.D+s poi) 's^i^ aiji. pai|sin6u!+xa SADIJ o+ pa6a||» si oijwi 'g-A\<j uioy !?|nj. ssau+iM +uspusdapu3; -^dl ^o ^0£-UO!+3SS ¥y-86fr-uo!+33S ^apun IVQ D|!tjswoy +uo||addD atj+ +sujB6o 4.|in6 344. i|Sj|qi4ss +ou saop uoi+noaso^d at)+ Xq pa| aauapiAa 8t|4. 4.01)4. pan6jD jog DijtpiUDy +uD||addo ai|4. joj. |ssuno3 psiuoyi •aso» sii^. w S002~/0-2Z pa4.op japjo ai)+ uioj^. +ua^Dddo si SD S66I~60'6I uo ps^idxs tuoy nTs^ puo t66I-90"SI uo ps^jdxa jog i+DAiuoy pssnwo-o^ •g •I-ojod ui UMOI^S so tuoy nfa)| y ii>g i+DAiuoy pasroyv-oy so \pM sw 4.uo||sddo 344. paaua^uas puo pa+oiAuoa uoj4.ro%ojd ai|4, Aq pa| aou^siAs 344. uodn 6uj/|aj afipnj' |D!^(. stjjL •a^uapiAs ou ps| +nq aauaj.ap ui souaaouui papoa|d 109 D|it|suiDg +UD||addD 3t|J^ -3SD3 S+j ^O 4.joddns ui ssssau+iM g{ pauiuioxa uoi+nsasojd aiji '4.|in6 Jiai|4. pajnfqD uioy nTsi^ y jog i+DAiuoy pssnTOD-oo so ||3M SD 4.uo||addo 34^ -3^1 j-o /0£'? V-86fr~uo!+33S japuri uiDg nfa^ y icg i+oAiuoy pasnys'o-os ai|4. +suiD6D SD ||3M so 4.uD||addo au^. +suiD6o pauiiM^. SOM 36^043 -^di j.o /QE 9 V-86fr -uoi+335 japun pai.n^ssojd SBM uioy nts^ y icg i+DAUiDy pasnooo-o^ puo log oiitjsuioy +uD||addD at)+ 'uoi+oGi+saAui j.o uoi4.a|diuo3 ^a4.j.y '3dl ^° Z0£ y y-86fr-uo!+3aS •laPun puniuosotpvV W 986T-SO-80 uo paja+si6a.i SDM •g'rj sisoq +044. uo puo|D+idsoi| ai^. ui jog j+un^ I1—F'I"I :1 itlll K\ li.il 'a II l! ^e ^" accordin9 to •rfie testimony of Kunti Bai, the appeltant Ramshila Bai had not set her on fire but had merely thrown kerosene over her. It was also pointed out that no charge under Section-34 of IPC was framed against -the cppellont. On these grounds, it was contended that the conviction ond sentences oiwarded by the trial Judge deserve to be set aside. On the other houid, Shri Ashish Shukla, teomed ©ovt.Advocate argued in support of the impugned judgment. 4. There is no qaecific allegation of harassment by Ihe appetlant Ramshila Bai, who often used to reside in Village-Bemcha with her parents. Kunti Boi PW-9 has stated tiiat the appellont Ramshila Bai was married to her bro-ther Bhukhon who lived in Bhilai <ind Ramdiila Bai always used to visit and stay with them which she did not like. In her testimony, -there is absolutely nothing to show that any act of cruelty wus committed by Ramshila Bai towards Kunti Bai. Thus, -the offence under Section- 498-A of JPC is not establi^ied at alt against the cippetlant Ramshila Bai. 5. So far as the offence under Section-307 of IPC is concemed, Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jeevan Nagesh PW-13 has in his report vide Ex.P-11 stn-ted that Kunti Bai had sustained fire sinceall of a sudden Chhena (^ry cow dung) had suddenly cought fire. The testimony of Parvati Bai PW-4 -riiat Kunti Bai had told her in -rtie hospitat that Ramshila Bai had set her on fire while die was sleepmg is wholly unreliable since Kunti Bai herself didnot make any such statement that she was set on fire while ^ie was sleeping in para-16 of her testimony. She also stated that during her hospitalization she did not tell anyone as to how she had cought fire on the da-te of occurrence.^ (^ ^ *i; 1 v Turiione 6. Tulsi Ram PW-2 an independent witness stated that upon hearing noise he went to the house of Kunti Bai at Vilfage-Bemcha and saw that Kunti Bai was abkize. After he extinguished the fire Kunti Bai had totd him that while she was cooking food suddenly her saree had cought fire. This witness has qiecifically stated that Kunti Bai did npt tell him that the appellant Ramshita Bai had set her on fire. Ram Ratan PW-1 is the Village-Panch who has also stated that on reaching the house of Kunti Bai, Kunti Bai had told him that while she lit •the match stick, her Terricot saree cought fire. In -the light of above facts and circumstances of -rtie case, the testimony of Kunti Bai-Hiat Ramshila Bai had thrown kerosene over her body is rendered wholly unreliable. As a matterof fact Kunti Bai PW-9 has herself not stated that Ramshita Bai had set her on fire. 7. Havin9 •ttius considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety and also in the abovementioned facts and circumstonces, the testimony of Kunti Bai PW-9 tiiat Ramshila Bai had thrown Kerosene on her person is rendered wholly unreliable and unworthy of credit. Conviction of the appellant Ramshila Bai under Section-498-A & 307 of IPC 1+terefore deserves to be set aside. 8. In the»result, the oppeal is allowed. Conviction of the appetlant Ramshila Bai under 5ection-498-A A 307 of IPC and the sentences awarded •thereunder are set aside. The oppellant is acquitted. Her bail bonds are cancetled. "^~ Sd<- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ ^