uaew COIUKTo^ CMH^CTTISGARM> BUASRUR CrimmalAeD»rtN<*.725oft2(»07 APPELLANT: CInJall) RESPONDENT: W|ay Kumar, S/a Konda Satnamt) aged 25 years, R/o Chollkpara, P.S. Basna, Dtstt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus l The State of Cbhatttsgarti, Through PS Basna, Dlstt. Mahasamund (C.G.) {Crimtnal appeal under Section 374 (2) of tbe Code of Crimtnat Procedtire, 1973} Present: Mr. AstiQkMlshra, cotlflsetJ'Brtiieappellant. Mr.SushU Dubey, Go^gL AdvoGirt&f&r th&Stat^/F^petKtent. 'A. t : • ; ~ SmatoBanehi Hon'bto—r.T.P. Shiama.A ORAt .lUDGMfiN-E (4-9-200&) 1. This criminal appeat Is directed aoatasttheJudgmentofainvlGtlon & order of sentence dated 2-5-2007 pa^edtoytheSKStonsludger Mahasamund (n Sesslons Trtal No.15/2007, whereby &whereunder learned Sessions 3udge after holdlng the appellant guMty for commission of offenc& under Sectlon^ 307 of the LP.C., senteix^d hlm to undergo R.I. for seven years & pay flne of Rs.1,000/-, In ctefault of payment of flne to further ufldeigo RJ. for three months. \. 2. ludgment Is chEttlenged on the gFound that without any credtble and clinching evidence, ^the Court betow has convicAed & seBtmicsd the appellant as aforementloned andthereby Gommltted UlegaKty. 3. Caseoftheprosecutlon,tn brtrf, Is that tnjyral Noharbal (PW-1), tha complainant, who iswffe of the accusecl/appeUant, was resldtog wtth the accused^ On 1I-7-200& at about 9 p.m. th6cornplatEianfe was - sleeping wlth hef daughtec (n her room. Ttw appetlanfe was SuspaAing that hls wlfKls havlng tlllctt retatton w b some othec person and on the ground of susptcton he used to quaFrel wtth tfw complair^nt. At the time of tnclctenty agatn oft tba grQUnd of susplcton,theappeUaTitquaFrallejdwltfeth&£omplahMmtan(tthrusted clotfrin her mouth, thene^teF, hepouFeclkeresena^btloweTherbMly r and set herablaze,., She Wa& burnt and taeeama uCTcoiteclous. 1 Relatives and othep pereons took her to the hospltak Q 1-8-2006 ^••-1 >— she lodged the neport vkle Ex.P-1. Her bumt pleca. otdoth, bumt mosquito n^, <Mie kerasene ce>ntatoeF & matcfc bQ)t were srtzeA vkle Ex.P-2. Sha^ws sent for medlcal examtoayon and she was examSnsd by Dr. R.N. Das (PW-9) vkte Ex.P-9 who foumt 21"1 & 3"1 degr^ of bum Irdurtss oveF iteck, f^a, chesk, shaulder & bands up to 40%. Spot map was prepared vlde Ex.P-4. Burnt artlctes and other thlngsweFasentfOF-examlnatiofl.Statementsofthewltnesse& were recorded under SecUon ISlof the Cr.P.C. anAafter compleBon of Investigatlon, charge sheet was flled before the,JudtaUri Magl^rate First Class, Mahasatnund who li^ tum, commltteA the casa to th& Court of Sesslons. 4. In order to prove the guttt of_the aGcused/apprilant, the prosecution has fficamtaed as .man^ as nlne; wttBasses. Statement of the appellantwasreee>Kiedi&d(KSe<±lQn3A3ofth&CF.R.CInwlHchhe denled the ctrcumsfanGes appearing agalBst hlm and pleaded Innocence & false IraplicrtlQn. The appeUanfc Aas exatBined dMsuss witness Manoj KumaF (DW-l), brother of the accused, wfto has deposed that at the tlme of Inddent, h& heard tha Kiund of hte slster-ln-law {fiftafeAO, the Iryured^ on whteh he reacheci ta the spoty her sister-ln-law was hurntng, they extlngulshed tbe flrfe and took her to the hospital along witfc hi& brottaer, the aecused/appeMant hereln. Pollce came there a@d the cotnplatnant told that sh& was sleeplngtnanottierrQQfflanA&naccountofacctdeRt,shareceh(ed burn Injurles. 5. After aftordlnft opportunity ofe heartng, to tha partles, leamed Se^ionsJutlge convlcteA & senteoce tha appeUanfe tn the aftarasald manner. 6. I hav& heard learned coiunsel, <w the partl^ anet pa-used tbe JudgmentlmRuonaLasalso.tti&rKonloftheCQurtttelow*; ^. Learned counset forthe appettant vetien'ieBtly arguedtbat the FJ-R. has been todged after 23 days df th& tecldent and tftft cGirnptateant has not explatoett tfee detay In tottging ttw F.lJt. 'nr eomptataant wasshlffiedtothfehospltoJtoFtreateientbytheaGeused^a treated afcthecai^oftheaccusad. The liiddent was as a CKidt of acGWenfcandtheappenanthasnatGQnimtttedaByoffiaRGepuiilshabte under Sectioh^M7 otthe I.P.C. :s^'- < 8. On the otber handf leareed Stafc&eauBset.suppocl^^ thfejuttgtnent impugned and arguad ttiat tbe ^roisecuBan ha& proved tbte case beyond aU teasonat»l&doubt&and th®;a£ei^Bdte thfepersan twtia has causal^fatal & (tengeraus^ii^uries;^ bum to th& eornplataarA. Tlte complafnant Is wlfe. of ^be appdlant anA th& appellanfc te under obilgatlon tflk save her lif^ but ti^ead. of sawlng her, tfaft accu^ri/ appellant has trted to end her Ufar tbeFrfan^. h& ck>es not deserve any sympathy. 9. In order to appreGlate the contenttons of th& parties, I hawe examfned the ewkleBce avallabte QH recoFd. Case Qf tfee pFesacuHon rests on dlrect,&medtGai,evldence.EvtdeneeofthepFOseEitflonhas been attacked t»ythe drf^enee, by adduelBg; the- evldence- of defwsoe wltness. The F.I.ft. has n^: beien lodged prampUy. In case crf <telay In lodglng;thftP^R..thapros!eeua<M» 1s rectulred. to fficplaln the dday properiy. Delay in todglng. the F.I.R. Is not alw^fs fetat to tbe prosecutlQn, if thft delay (& ecplatefiA pFopaiy Uien the delay In lodglngthe.F.LR.Isxtdnocoinsettuence. lO.NoharbaJ (fW-1), who Is wtf6of tbeappeltant, hasdeposed thaton the date of Incldent the appdlant has coBsumed UquoFy he Game to her room at night and used fltthy language, he thrustsed etoth in her mouth and poured kBrosena oU by BghUng mateh^^ and he sek her ablaze. AftersettlBg her ablazer th&accused was presanfe to room and was slttlog on the ehair, her ArotheE-ln-law (Qeyar) Manoj Kumar came and extingulshed the, flre.. MaaoJ KuinaF toak tier to Basna hospitat, thererfter, he toofc her to JagcUshpur hospltai. Rnallyshe loidgedthereport^vld&Ex.P-l. ll.NQhar Das(PW-2) - fatherof the Iniurady B^motl (BW-3^- mother of the trdured, 3al Singh ^RW-4) & Ai^ore Slflgh CPW-S> - persons o( the paternal vltlage of thie btluredy hawa d^iaaMt that th^! came to kflowahQutthelnddentandthecomplainaBtnarFatedthelncidentto them. S.D. Baghel (RW-8), Syb;InspectQr, has InwesttgateA th& crime andhe has proved the dQcumeBts Exs.P-1 to P-7. 12-Dr. R.N. Das (PW-9) has deposal thatoa 1-8-2DO& he.bas examlned Mrs-^lphar Bai and foynd terrt li^urlesof2^ & 3rt degreeover her ,- face, necl^ chest,.shoulder & hands., 40% bura i(^urle& wwe found. ^on hefbpdycaiised wfthln^aS-ZS days. ; 'SSssI^SS^i ^.y 13.Bum (njuriessustatned b^theK^upM/campIaltWBtsaF&not dlsputiad by the defence^ Mano^ KuH'iar (DW-1), brothaE o£the aceusKl 81 brotber-lB-lau o£thft cfitBplatoant, h?& dfiposed ttiafe he heatd. the sound for he4^o( the cQmplaiaaffitiQra whteft torusta^ tGk tbasputf, his sldteF-m-law waa burning, twteettagulshed-thailFft a@A took-.h'w to the hospltal for tF^tHaeat wbere she was treafeect^l-le h^^further deposeAttiARoUc&cafn&tbere.ailAth&CQmplalnanfchastold.tQ^tbei Pollce thafc afe the timeaf totcKtenfcsheswas sleepta&atKtshfe ree^ved bum iryuctea dua ta th&atxtdent eftfauaitBt of llglit. Ha has alsot deposed thafc the accuseti tQQk. hec foF trert» nt aad tha complalnant was treated rt tha cost oC the.accuseda In hls CFMS- examinatlein, ha t»asdei|(ed the sugsestlon of stisplclon rdattng. to the character of tlia Cidtn^ainaiAt H& has atsa denl«l & suggi^Ue'a in para 9 that at^Ahfe tfea of hiddent the. accuseA caine after consumlng llquor. ? l4.According to tbeevldenceofManoJKumar(DW-l)yWho Is lirotberof the accused l.e. doss relatlv^ ^whlte ttee. complataant was undeF treatment atjagdishpur hQspttaly th&, PoMce. canie to whom hls st^eF- in-law^ the coEnplataanl^ natrated the Incldent as arcldeBt, bufc the defence has not called such Pollce Offieer beftwe whom the complalnant ha& narratad the Incidentas-lncldent. AdinMtedly, Ur. coinplaJnaiit has liSdged theC^R^afiaE 23 d^&ofitbe iiicldent. As (tepesiKl by Dr. RJil. Da& CBW-9)y ^a reeeta<eA 40% burft IrtfttriK, o( 2nd & 3ri degree. Manc^ Kumar (DW-1> has admtttect that aftw treatmenfethe coinplalnaiAte restdtegEiwttlfcbtf paEent& tS.Noharbal (PW-l^th&aBly suto^aBUafcttyuredwttnssSyWhaiswtS&oft tt»e ap^Uant, ha&;denled 1& para t2.^rf hec crosfr®caffllnatla&Uife sugg^tlon tbat sta& r^tfxed hura Insjucl^ as a result of UEXktent. Sh& has adraltted that hec nlne rnontb^ olAdayghteF was steepto^ -with Jleron the sam& cot and tbe mosc(ulto n^was alsa partly bwnt^ She has admitted in para 14 of her ®rtdenGe~thatttie. cost of traatment wias faorne by her httsbaodlA. tbe aceused/appdtant aiid after treatmeat she wenttoher pararits' house. 16.AGconling to the ease <^ delaacs, wtiU& snrtehlng shawl by tbs -cCTiE^tainant.tiiGtelentaltytheJlgbttegctrin'in^felloverthftfaalandas such, the GomptaiiiaBt (eeelv«lbucH inJuFtes. MesqultQ net was alsa partly bucnt^ Tfee iiurnfc^niasquttQ n^^has b^»srized vfale EX.P-Z ec s< ..c^^^^&'. Soma whlch reveals that one mosqulta nA contolntng kerosena: smeB bM, beettselzedwhlGhwasburnfcatsorrie^toEes.Thetnosqutt&nefcwas not corepJetelybucntoF cotnpldaly dadiaged. The camplatnantwas sl^iing along wttti her nlne montbs'; ageA daugtrtep, t»ut bar daughtBF has ttotsu^ataed; any li^iuy. tn case of any aedd^t caused. by fatUng off kerosene; larop <»thftcot^bed, the accldent wlU not save one person anA-lnJure anotheF pers<» . In case of sueh accldent, the nlna months' helpless daugtoter VKould alse have sustained burB inlurieSr but sccept the. complalnaBt nobody sustataed bui-H in.luFlea, even her b^ sheet and o er cfartbes wera not bumt. Thls shmws ttaat thts is notthe case tf accldent by faU. o( the burntn^kei'oseiie lamp on the bfft. BUE(I In.tuEtes atstatoed by thecQmplainant reveal that thls is delUieFatapOtutitgafkei'osenfiail on tbe complalriant ari^ caustng^ burn ifljuries an her. Atter sustalnlng hum ti^urtes, thfe aimptalnant was under treatmetA and after treatment she has lodged the report^ Delay In lodglna tha report has been prQperty explalned. On the other hand, the Incldent Is notdlsputed.by theaecused. 17.Evldenceof tbe cQmplatnant who is wlfe- of the appellant tasplres CQnftdence, it 1s trustworthy and supported by madjeaJ avlttenee which 1& sufflclent for drawlng tnfeFene6 that tbe appdlai* Is the person who has poured kerosenfeftV over her body and set heT ablaze^ Tbe act of pQiu-lng kerosene oll ®nttie. body of the complalnantf who is wffie of th&appdlaatr and s^ttBg. ha- on flre squarely falls wlthin the ambtt of Sectlon 307 of the LP.C. iS.After appredattag the evidence available on reeard, leamed S^slons 3udge hasconvtcted&sentencedtheappdlant. la.TakinglntocQnslderatlonthatnJuriescauseAbybumandpeFcentage of InjuFles l.e. 40% 2nd &3"1 degree, sentenGes of RJ. f&r seven years & flne of Rs.lrdQO/- ImposedtipoaJA&appeltant aFfelustand reasonabte, and do n<»toll fty any tnterference. Th& appealtsllable to be dtsnnissed and It Is hereby dlsmlssecl. Sd/- I^P.Shanna Judge 1.i- '.'/ - ^.' .i;