mm m 200 whereby 1earn€d Additional Sessions Judga after holding the MW,W,W o Wm wt 200 mama: (W) WWW mmm mwfiwm WWW 2 mm accused} appdlant guilty for commission of the oEence under Section 302 0f the Indian Penal Code, sentenced hJ'Jn to undergo It has further been mentioned that h'f imprisonment means imprisonm ent for rest of the life. 2. Case of the prosec tion, in brief, is that in the morning of 27th February 2000, som quarrel took place between the accused and his wife Sumitrabai since deceased), the accused dashed the head of Sumitrabai again t the door name 3—4 times, as a result of which Sumitra sustai injuries on the head and became unconscious. Thereafter the accused poured kerosene oil on the bodv of Sumitrahai and et her on 1ire, as a result of which she succumbed to the 1000/ burn injuries sustained by her. Merg ' intimation (EXP; 12) of 1) on the basis of which erg No. 16/ 2000 was registered by P.S. Re this report S.H.O., imprisonment for life an to pay a one of R3200] -. Janjg'r—Champa. P.S. Janjg'r Champa left for the seen of occurrence and after gving notice to the Panchas, he prepared the Panchanama (Ex.Pf 1) on the body of deceased Sumitrabai. P 1chanarna (EX.PI5) regarding the door Dead body of postmortem examination to Govt. EX.P[6 where Dr. V.P. Soni (PW-10) conducted postmortem o the body of deceased Sumitrabai and report (Ex.P[ 7') in which he opined that incident was gven by Sudarshan (PW- e name of house of the aused was prepared. Sumitrabai was sent Jlospital, Champa und prepared the postmor \ / / n c ' ' g c r t XI-HC~—78 WW, Wig,W mm 111 200 mm (W) " mm m WWW 3 WW§WW *a‘mm cause of death is shock due to ante mortem extansive burn 100%. Nature of the death seeme to be homicidal. Site plan (EXP; 9) was Based on the postmortem report J and other documents, S.H.O. P.S. Champa registered the First information Report (Ex. P/ 17) for commission of the o§ence under Section 302 of the IPC. Ooe container of tin of kerosene oil, burnt clothes of the deceased, I , A w / half burnt blanket and one half burnt bedsheet Were seized under EX.P] 19. investigation charge sheet was nled against the accusedf appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrater Janjgir who 3. After completion of turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur &om Where learned Additional Sessions Judge, received the case o to establish the charge against the Statement of the accused was 13 of the Cr.P.C. in which in reply to admitted that on the date of incident at e and his wife were the only two persons er stated that he did not indulge in een. In reply to question No. 7 he has urnt in his house and Was lying on the d that there was any injury on the head pleaded igiorance about the death of urn injuries. He has stated that Witness 4. Prosecution in 0r accused examined 14 Wi recorded under Section question No. 2 he himself 9.00 a.m. in the morning ‘ at his residence. He fu marpeet, tire smoke was admitted that his Wife got ¢ ground. However, he deni of Sumitrabai . He has Sumitrabai on account of transfer for trial. 65568. prepared by the Halka Patwari. ' d o XI~HC——78 Wm ax 209 mm (Wig) ° WWW ammm mamifs‘am 4 $aifm6n€¥t WWW Semvel is a police Witnass, thare’fore, he is lying. Ultimately, he has stated that he is irmocent, he did not commit marpeet with his Wife, there was some altercation as his Wife came late after taking bath, he was working m another room whereas his Wife was 1'11 another room, the dear was bolted from inside and as to how she burnt, he does not know. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing counsel for the respective parties convicted and sentenced the accused] appellant as a ementioned. 6. We have heard . R.P. Tripathi, counsel appearing on , behalf of the accused/ a yellant and Mr. Ahsish Shukla, Additional Public Prosecutor for th State} non—applicant. 7. As far as homic death of Sumitrabai is concerned. Mr. ’l‘ripathi, has not disp ted the homicidal death of Sumitrabai. Moreover, Dr. V.P.Soni ( W—lO) who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Sumi abai has stated that on 27.2.2000 he conducted postmortem on the body of Sumitrabai and found following injuries: rigor mortis re present on the dead body, the dead body was 1 % burnt from top to bottom, the skin was turned lackish, hair of the head were burnt, the tongue was between the teeth and was protruding. sene oil was emanating hom the dead (1) f r i 0 e XI-HC—78 W mw, Wig, 'mmm MWm WWW '3’ WW§WW ~ $Wm (2) there was z of 2.5 X 2 E0111 right e (3) there was an abrasion on the wrist of the right hand in 2.5 x 3 cm, there was an abrasion in the on the middle miger of the left hand; On dissection of the head, it was found that there was coloured blood was accumulated, carbon particles mortcm in nature, they were caused by hard and blunt object. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock as a 1 esult of 1000A) burn injuries and death was homicidal i1] nature. The above, medical evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-8 Semvel Kumar Who is a neighbour of the accused. Therefore, in View of the above medical and ocular evidence it is established that death o the size of size of 1cm in the center of the head, dark black a &acture were present in the trachea. 11 injury on the occipital region in the size hm. near the ear, blood was oozing out 31”; Injuries were ante 1‘ Sumitrabai was homicidal in nature. 8. As far as involvement of the accused] appellant in crime in question is concerned, ' evidence against the ace rests on the circumstan this case there is no direct or ocular sed. Conviction of the accusedf appellant 'al evidence, which are as follows; Wm in 200 mam (W) ° EW,W,W mm m 200 mam (W) é WWKWW *mFaimm mmm That in tht: morning before Sumitrabai sustained burn injuries, re was some altercation between the accused d his Wife Sumitrabai (since deceased); That at th time of incident only the accused and his Wife Sumi abai were pres ent in the house; That, in found on injuries o her person, she died on account of 100% postmortem examination Eacture was head of the deceased, there were other burn injur es; That, s dead bodv f Sumitrabai; That, explanation was given. by the accusedia peilant that his Wife sustained burn injuries Wi electric heater. of kerosene oil was emanating horn the As far as the hr circumstances is concerned, PW—8 Semvel Kumar has stated that at about 9.00 a.m. on the fateful day he was at his residence, his residence is at the distance of 10—20 ft. nom the residence of the accused. Sumitrabai was married to the accused about one year’s back. On the fateful day, While he was plucldng beans, at that time . both the husband and Wife were quarreling, they were abusing each other, Shatrughan gave beating to his wife. Though he heard the sound of beating, but he thought that it would be a famity dispute. After about nve minutes, he saw kerosene oil smoke coming out from the house of the accused, the e e e m f e WW, Wm,W WW mmm .7 accused was standing house of ths accused. 3 other persons also r saw that Sumitra was house of the accus accused came running the heater E0111 the another room. not in injuries. Accused Sha ughan said that Sumitra was heating the m the heater. Smell of kerosene oil was m where Sumitra got burnt. In paragraph 5 he has stated that h had seen the heater, it was o§ and it was not even hot. 10. Learned counsel Kumar is a cooked up and in the cross-ex aspect that in number argued that other Wi case, therefore, implici of this Witness. 11. i Dewangan, PW—3 Ch hostile and they ha therefore, there is only water and got burnt emanating from the r0 sedng this he rushed towards the thare. is son Sushil came after him. thereafter 2- :ached there and extinguished the iire. He ying on the floor in the middle room of the in a burnt condition. Thereafter. the from hont gate, he tried to take out plug of in switch but the main switch was in the room Where Sumitra sustained burn It. is true that other Witnesses namely PW—2 Netram anlal, PW-4 Sushil Kumar have turned not supported the prosecution case, ne Witness Le. PW-S Samvel Kumar, to the \\ m; 200 anew-m (W) mainstamw‘iifs‘z'tm asaiferqm or the appellant argued that PW—8 Semvel 'tness as he is a stock Witness of the police ination, he was cross-examined on the f cases he Was a police Witness. He further lesses have not supported the prosecution reliance cannot be placed on the evidence s a o XI-HC—78 mW,Wwl—<;,W mm (W) 'WWW W mm 8 mmifzém mufgam %aif%m3n%¥r fact that there was a‘quarral betwean the accused and his Wife in the mornjng of the da of incident, at that time only the accused and deceased were pre ent in the house, smell of kerosene oil was emanating from the b dy of deceased and that the accused gave false explanation that Sumitra sustained burn injuries with the electric heater. In th cross—examinaticn of this Witness on the aspect that earlier his tailoring shop was near the police station therefore, he was a ss of police in 150-200 cases, he has denied the suggestion stated that two years prior to the date of incident he had closed shop and in that year only in 2-3 cases he gave the evidence. The evidence of this Witness that he is - neighbour of the accu has not been challenged in the cross- examination. It has no come on record in the cross—examination that this witness was ving any animosity against the accused. Moreover, the fact ins that as per medical evidence Sumitrabai sustained 1 0% burn injuries and smell of kerosene oil was emanating horn er body. Therefore, the evidence PW—8 Semvel Kumar stands c rroborated, in material particulars, by the medical evidence. The fact that there was no animosity between the accused and this ness, Who is admittedly residing in the nieghbourhood of the used, has been established. Therefore, there was no reason efore the trial Court to disbelieve the evidence of PW—8 Semve Kumar. l WW in 200 t e d e s , a r a 't ‘c XI-HC—78 @ o 3911mm Wm (W) mmm 9 WW wW %a‘f%mlm%$1 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further axgued that there is improvement in the evidence of this Witness. This witness in his police case diary has 't stated anything about the quarrel that took place between the accused and the deceased on the fateful day in the mcrning an he has also not stated that at the time of incident he was plucking beans. This witness in his diary statement has not disclq sed that he heard the cries of Sumitrabai. 13. ln order to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused; appellant We have perused the police diary statement (EXDI 1). . statement this witness fateful day, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. In fact, this 1t is true that in the police case diary has not stated that in the morning of the Witness in police case diary statement has started his statement from the happening of the incident i.e. nom 9.00 a.n1. He has categ )rically stated that he heard the cries from the side of house of the accused, he saw that smoke was coming out nom his house. Slratrughan was present in the courtyard of his house, he was screaming that Sumitra has burnt, therefore, he went towards the house of the accused and thereafter, number of persons from the vicini‘y came there. burnt, she was lying on the floor. disclosed that Sumitra has sustained injuries from electric heater Whereas smell of kerosene oil was emanating hom the room, heater was lying in another room, it was not on and on being checked, it / r Sumitra was completely On his enquiry, Shatrughan m m gi 200 XI-HC—78 @ WW,W§,W Wm 111 200 a 3mm (W) MWW ammmm WWW /o mm wm $WM i was not found hot. [”heréfore, if we 100k into the police diary statement and the statement made before the Court bv this witness, we and that in both the statements material parn'culars of ed except the fact that in the morning of s some quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Howe on the basis of this omission the evidence of a prosecution witn ss cannot be disbelieved. Only material contradiction or impr nt can be considered, that‘too, if the Witness tries t0 impr his evidence before the Court in such a manner which is n consistent with the police case diary statement in material particulars. Such minor omission and contradiction are but atural because there is always suhstann'al gap of time between two statements, thereforer in natural course there is ev y likelihood of minor omission and contradiction. Unless omission and contradiction are material in nature, the evidence f a natural Witness should not be rej ected. In the present case, the presence of PW—8 cannot be doubted being neighbour of the acc sed, apart from that his evidence is corroborated by the g evidence. 14. As discussed above, we do not hnd any such inconsistency or improvement in the evidence of PW—8 Semvel Kumar whose presence, being a neighbour of the accused, in his house at about 9.00 a.m. in the morningwas but natural. Even the accused in his nd situation at the spot and the medical the incident are menti the fateful dav. there v . n a o e o o e e r XI~HC—78 WW, m,W mam (W) WWW W m mm'm /r mmiiwm $Wwé¥r statemmt undm‘ Sectior 29 has himself stated th and as she took some m of some hot words, the some altercation betwa Kumar &ds support fr Thus, from the evidenct the accused himself it i quarrel took place betw mOI‘IHIlg. 15. As far as the se incident only the accus cone erned. even the acm the Cr.P.C. in reply to therefore, it is establish: and his Wife were the on l6. So far as the tl concerned, from the me it is established that th( the deceased and she sustained by her. Frcm the doctor’s evidence, the postmortem report and the evidence of PW—8 Samvel Kumar, it has come on record that smell of ker . 313 of the Cr.P.C. in reply to question No. at he did not commit marpeet with his Wife hre time in taking bath there was exchange refore. in View of this fact that there was in the two, the evidence of PW—8 Semvel om the statement of the accused himself. of PW—S Semvel Kumar and admission of s established that on the fateful dav some een the accused and the deceased in the cond circumstance that on the date of ed and his Wife were present in house is ised in his statement under Sech'on 313 of question No. 2 has admitted the same, :d that on the date of incident the accused Ly two persons present in the house, iird. fourth and hjth circumstances are iical evidence and the postmortem report, :re was a fracture in the occipital region of died on account of 100% burn injuries )sene oil was emanating h‘om the body of deceased Sumitrabai, therefore, based on the above evidence it is WW a 200 )G—HC—78 m in 200 W o mm (W) WWW §§ W mwiwm Wmm l1. %si1%maié¥r established that smell of kerosene oil was emanating from the body of Sumitrabai. So far as the last circumstance that the accused cemed false explanation that his Wife sustained burn injuries &om the heater, is concerned,‘ PW—8 has stated that the accused on enquiry as to how Sum itra sustained injuries, informed him that she sustained burn injuries nom electric heater, As per the evidence of this Witness, the heater was lying in another room, even then the accused tried to take out the plug of heater from the main switch which was in another room. He has further stated that he himself checked the heater, it was not hot at that time. ence of this witness, it is established that " the accused gave false explanation that Sumitra sustained burn injuries with the electric heater when she was heating the water. 17. From the above, is established that the accused and the deceased were the only two pasons present in the house at the time of incident, as medical evidence Sumitrahai died on account of 100% burn ' juries sustained by her, smell of kerosene oil was emanating horn the body of Sumitrabai and also from the room Where she was burnt, there was a fracture in the center of her head and false Therefore, as per the lanation Was given by the accused that his wife sustained bur injuries with the electric heater. In fact, when the accused and deceased were the only persons present in the house, as per tion 106 of the Evidence Act the burden was on the accused to ain the circumstances under which his ‘d p t 1 ' g p S c e l XI-HC—78 @ W 3a W, m, m 200 a mm am$ mm 1§éim %5$fEIH%rl%¥I mm (W) Wife Sumitrabai sustajl .ed burn injuries. On the contrary, the :planation regaxding the burn injuries I'hich is also an additional factor showing accused gave false es sustained by her wife, v involvement of the accu 18. establishes immlvemen question beyond all r incriminating circumsta drawn that accused S question and there is no the above oEence. reasons, We do not hnd any illegality or 19. For the foregoing innrmity in the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accusedfappellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Accordingly, the imposed upon the accused] appellant is conviction and sentence maintained. 20. Learned Additiona. Sessions Judge in concluding paragraph of the judgnent has d in crime in question. Therefore, the cu ulative edect of the above circumstances of the accusedfappellant in crime in unable doubt. From the above proved aces the only irresistible inference can be hatrughan was author of the crime in yossibility of any third person committing observed that life imprisonment 7 means imprisonm ent for rest of the life. After awarding life imprisonm ent there was no need to nake this observation as it is superfluous because life imprisonment itself means in law’ that a person sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the life term in prison. é? mw,m,m ,‘K‘ mm wt 200 3mm (W) o WWW mwm WW WW wwé$m « ’ M“ éxsimw 21. In the result. th a appeal being devnid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is nereby dismissed. "d/- /é Dhirendra Mishra, Judge /