H 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar, JJ. Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 1993 '•< Appellant State of M.P. (now State of Chhattisgarh) versus r~" ResBondent Ramjan Ali JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION _^ S61- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, J.: -3_<scyee_^ Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge .—.^ y^ .> Post for pronouncement of Judgment 2s? -06-2 _Sd/- JUDGE t-5-06-2009 I HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble Shri DiliR Raosaheb Deshmukh Hon'ble Shri R. L. Jhanwar. JJ. Appellant Respondent (^icysedl Cr. Appeal No.234/1993 •» State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Versus Ramjan Ali son of Shri Amir Ali aged about 35 years R/o Farid Nagar, Police Station : Supela Tahsil and District Durg (M.P.) Present: Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant. Shri H.B..Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Delivered on this!-iwlA^ of June, 2009) The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of respondent- Ramjan <"' Aliof thechargeunderSection-302ofthelPC. 2. In this appeal it is not ip dispute that deceased Mst. Anisa Bano was the wife of respondent and 'died due to burn injuries on 29.7.1990. 3. Prosecution story in short is that on 29.7.1990 the respondent ^ / poured kerosene over Mst. Anisa Bano and set her on fire by a matchstick. Mst. Anisa Bari5 died in Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai. Merg No. 21/90was registered on 30.7.1990. IntejarAli, aged 6 years (P.W.-1) saw his mother being set on fire. Dying declaration of Mst. Anisa Bano was_ ^ recorded by O.P. Keshariya, Executive Magistrate (P.W.-10) in presence of Dr. Diwan, in which Mst. Anisa Bano did not implicate the respondent and stated that she caught fire by accident and in fact her husband had made effort to save her by throwing water over her body. She categorically denied that the respondent had set her on fire. Prior to this, another dying declaration was recorded vide Ex.P-15 by the Town Inspector- Sanjay Borkar. Even in that statement, the deceased did not implicate her husband and stated that the respondent had in fact extinguished the fire and brought her to the hospital. 4. The respondent- Ramzan Ali abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. No evidence was led in defence. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Durg on appreciation of evidence held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent under Section 302 of the IPC and acquitted him. 5. We have heard Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and Shri H.B. Agrawaf; learned Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent. 6. On perusal ofthe dying declarations of Ex. P.11 & Ex.P.15 and the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of theconsidered opinion that these t\y6 dying declarations do not implicate the respondent in any manner. On the other, hand, they show that the respondent had extinguished the fire and taken the deceased to the hospital. This explains the presence of burn injury on the respondent and the smell of kerosene on his scalp and pant. The testimony of Intejar Ali (P.W.-1) has also been ~M ^tfflt^ Hffii considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and found to be concocted in paragraph 13 to 21. We concur with the view taken by the learned 1 Additional Sessions Judge and find no reason to take a different view. The acquittal ofthe respondent is thus well merited. 7. In ttie result, the appeal is without merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. /'"• Sdf- / Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \.! 5i ^l ii^