'^ ^ ..\^'\<^> ^y \^~ y "€•< ?'" } ^^ ! &**' . \' ''^•' Oiviiion Sench ( iiriilnal) JS THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIC&TURS KS JABALPU&. W.P. Cri.Appeal Ho.^r. \ ^·.~. •^X'f^T} of_ 1999, APPELL&NT IN JAXL V.ijay Yadav. aged aboup 40 years 'S/o Rohit Lal Yadav, R/o J'anjgir, Chandaniyapara, a-t present Talapara, Indira Nagar, P.S. Civil Lines, Bilaspur. V E RSTJ S RESPOND3NT State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspyr. (MP)^ CRIMIH&L P~&KL. UITOER SSCTION,37_4 (2)_ OF 'THE _GODE OF CRIMB3&L PROC3SDURE 1973. 'f" -A—-- »»-4;aaits.i Bteasm XI-HC-78 *<i*iwiai*iich 35?''<iiii|ci<i,wnu'i6,^|<-fi!y'y. ^Q^A^k^H^W^2(M) S-ii^i '•laftt ('^g^^F) sn^rwteN (PIT3n^Tsbt)i°b gBnwflfersn^T °tii<iF«<fl-i*iiii-irffte<A<Rifrii< %3T^T3n^T "^ '^> DIViSION BENCH: HC|N'BLE SHRI L.C. BHADOO AND ^ON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA iVllSHRA, Vijay Yadav Vs. Shri Rahbir Singh learhed| Shri G.D. Vaswani, respondent/State. . counsel for the appellant. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the ORA -JUDGIV1ENJ arlt Per L.C. Bhadoo , J By this appeal under. Procedure the accused/appell legality and correctness of the in of sentence dated 30.9.1999 Bilaspur in Sessions trial Nc Sessions Judge after holding under section 302 of the !PC hs (09.11.2006) s^ction 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal namely Vijay Yadav has questioned the in(ipugned judgment of conviction and order p^ssed by 7 Additional Sessions Judge, |. 44/1999 whereby learned Additiona'. Ijiim guiity for commission of the offence |s sentenced to undergo imprisoninent for P.T.O. XI-HC-78 *1 l<?TTa>*IT^i 3^ •^iwio'M, ®Tn'y'ic,&cii«y. ^^C-<-S~.(\.'2-k^t~)/oot _ -.. ^^^^^.•.•.^^^v^f^,^ 2((fl —»?- ^3l|^!l 1451<*> (l.'^Itt'ifl) sn^TwR-ii.* cpiT sn^r giWF s^nmflferaTi^T qilllcl'fl-l WRff ff fel^l' tlSlWK '^)3lf^tT3n^T .. ;.. life and pay fine of Rs. 20001-, undergo Ri for one month. n default of payment of fine to further 2. Case of the prosecution ij 19/20-9-1997 when accused/appl at their residence, some quarrell prosecution case the accused/[ deceased Rampyari Bai. Even sht she had no physical relationship to accept the explanation given kill her and in that process he iai and set her on fire, At that t| was at the residence and he trieij of his mother who also received grand mother and informed her Bai was taken to Government H| P-15 was given by Rampyari Ba| information report Ex. P-16 was under section 307 of the IPC.Ho\ Bl succumbed to the burn injuries o|i brief is that in the inter/ening night of i^llant and deceased Rampyari Bai were started between ths two. As per the ippellant. was doubting the fidelity of i^ explained to the accused/appellant that |with anybody else but he was not ready [>y the deceased and said that he would pcjured kerosene on the body of Rampyari |me son of the deceased namely Pappu to extinguish fire in order to save the life |3urn injuries. He immediately went to his jibout the incident. Thereafter, Rampyari H|ispital, Bi!aspur where Dehati Naiisi Ex. at 12.20 hours and based on that first 1-egistered for the commission of offence ,|ifever, during the treatment Rampyari bai 20.9.1997 and the merg intirnation Ex. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ •^Hw'f,wS\w\e, Rlduy HI*TClT$t»<1|cb ^ Cf *^"»•T* •••»* *7"»*69 *^ «/*A"»• ii_i1 '^n< 3ii^i Macn (I^3g^ET) ati^TqirR-fi* (IWSTI^Tsniiti RgiWBfei'sn^T i)i<<tft<fl'i *iii<iTfftec3'<R]«i< %3lf^H3TI^T ; ; , P-16-A was sent to that effect tl which offence was converted intd 3 the'po!ice station and on the basis of section 302 of the !PC. 3. On receiving the informatil mother of the deceased also rep|orted was recorded under Rojnamcha of Rampyari Bai was conductec} prepared the post mortem reporl occyrred due to shock and extenlsive cent. The Investigating Officer| Panchas prepared the inquest re[ ?n from Pappu, the son ofthe deceased, the matter to the poiice. The same Ex. P-11-A. The post mortem on the body by Dr. S. Rao and Dr. Naldu and they Ex. P-8 in which they opsned that death sive burn injuries to the extent of 100 per affer giving notice of Ex. P-2 to the 30rt Ex. P-3 of She bodv of Rampyari bai. 4. After compietion of the in| Court of Chief Judicial Magistrat<| to the Court of Sessions Judgel Sessions Judge received the ca^ i/estigation charge sheet was filed In the Bilasour v/ho in turn committed the case Bi'aspur from vvhere learned Addltiona! e on transferfortriai. 5. Prosecution in order ijo establish the charge against the |many as eleven witnesses. Staten-ient c.f ifecorded under section 313 of the Code of Ihas stated that he 'was working as seivant P.T.O. accused/appetlant examined as the accused/appellantwas also r Criminal Procedure in whlch he ^ XI-HC-78 3^''<4I<<IC1<I, ®T(1t<'l<o,[stcfH^<. ^l<4dlsh^ich fnv:lrt"2^l(^?^- 2ft0 311^?Tiraip (tyi^al^q') -k - sn^r w R-ii.* (raT3II^T»H ?RiTWBf^a'sn^T 'shi'iifci'fl-i ii*«iTiFfW'(.Ri+<iK "' ; ^sif^R'a.niCT » of the deceased and was residli questions given by the accus^d, prosecution is faise. At !asf h^ been faisely implicated in the cri|ne tothaf a case oftheftwas also lcldi ng separately. In reply to the remainins i, he stated that the evidence of the has stated that he is innocent and has in question due to animosity and prior jed against him and he was acquitted in that case. He also examin|sd tv/o witnesses in de'fence nameiy Dashrath'al and Bajrang Prasad| hearing the argumsnts of cou(isel sentenced the accused/appeilant earned Additiona! Sessions Judae aftei for both the parties convicted and s mentioned above. 6. We have heard Sh accused/appellant and Shri G.D the respondenb'State. Ranblr Singh counsel for the Vasvani, Additional public prosecutor fot 7. It is not disouted that Ran pyari Bai died on account of burn injuries. 8. As far as the involvemert the murder of Rampyari Bai by on her body is concerned, the PVA/-1 Pappu, the son of the de the process of extinguishing the )t of the accused/appellant in committing Isetting her on 'fire after pouring kerosene cc|nviction primanly rests on the evidence of !|;eased who also received burn injuries in Ifire and PW-2 Rambha Bai, the mother of P.T.O. XI-HC-78 (^: NI*IWI Sh*frai 'SSI rt||<||cf<, ®Tl1y'l6,RtdlU(i< /'l^^W^2WQ —s~- Sii^i uach ('^3S^Er) sii^rqirR-fi.* (PIT3II^Tstl*f g<i1TWffli(T3n^T «bWffl41-lITTCif ff tecA ^FRR ^sri^irsn^r: ": the deceased as also the dying 4 P-15 made by Rampyari Bai befcj far as evidence of PW-1 Papp4 idaration in the fprrrt of Dehati NuHsi Ex. •e Sub Inspector T.P. Singh (PW-11). As and PW-2 Rambha Bai is concerned, iearned counse! for the accufeed oh Rambha Bai 'odged the report in| Rojnamcha Ex. P-11-A in which that accused set the deceased v/hereas the deceased in her D< was set oti fire 'by the accus| Rojnamcha Ex. P-11-A was giv| 'nformation glven by PW-1 Papp| evidence has stated that accu^ argument of Mr. Singh is that Si deceased and at the reievant timl Rar|-ipy has categoricaily' stafed that Rar|ip Hquoc and she herself.set o". fire). of PW-5 Santosh, evidence of Mr. Singh'also submitSed that a^ Jitpure, Rampyari Bai was brou^ht i./appellant vehemently argued that |the police station vvhich was recordsd In |there was no mention regarding t'ne fact fire after pouring kerosene on her body ihati Na'isi Ex. P-15 has stated that she fed. Mr. Singh further submitted that sn by Rambhai Bai PW-2 based on She p whereas Pappu in contravention of thet ted set the deceassd on fire. Further lintosh PW-5 who is the other son of She he was residina with PW-2 Rambha Ba! tipyari Bai.was In the habit of consuming |. Therefore, sn the presence of evidence :|W-1 Pappu does not inspire confidence. oer t'ne evidence of PVfl.'-.IO Dr. Smt. S. to the hospital at 12.10 hours and she F|<A? P.T.O. ^) XI-HC-78 *ll*ICITH»*11<sh 3^''<ii<i]n<4,BiTfl<i'i6, Rictltiy .<t<TvA.v%fc.L(.^./. 200 3ii^yi law(l^P^T) sn^T^rtei^ (PIT3TI^?T»tf WBTWBfiffsn^T °ni<l(<l<{l-f lllMTfftec^t<l»lt<iH : ;T "- ^sri^R'a.n^T . v/as not in a position to speak, tll said to have been given by She not inspire confidence. lerefore, Dehati NaHsi Ex. P-15 which is deceased to the Po!ice Officer also does 9, On the other hand 'ear^ed counsel for the respondent-'State bfthe trial Court. supports the impugned judgment 10. Inorder to appreciate the 4 the evidence available 6n record. 11. It is true that in the Rojnarr) Sai simolv it has been mentioned his mother received burn injurie^ report that the accused set the de|: her body. In the court evidence he witnessed the incident and th| even in Dehati Nalisi Ex, P-15aN irgument of Shri Singh we have perused |cha report Ex.'P-l 1-A given by Rambha that Pappu informed Rambha Bai that ]t is not mentioned in the Rojnamcha |seased on fire after pouring kerosene on the Rojnamcha report Ex. P-11-^j F|W-1 Pappu hascategoricaily ststed Shat ife accused set the deceased on fire and |'en by the deceased about an hour after it has been ststed that accused set the deceased on fire. 12. Havina oerused the Bai we are not convinced by the| evidejice of PW-1 Pappu and PW-2 Rarnbha arguments of Mr. Singh for the reason P.T.O. ? XI-HC-78 *iiM^tai»frai 3^ •<ll<lt<1<<, ®Tn*t'16,IsldlUy ^'s~,rt- • * *T* «'»» »»^TE^*l*/*/< Vt; —•7- W^ 200 Sll^i'l 4SIW (y)Igis|<^T) 3I1^?T9>rRH gqr sn^r giTRi ^Rnwdfer^n^T tiiiFn'fl-i WRrf ff fs^St <R|+AI< ^sil^iTsn^T that in the first instance Rojna|mcha report Ex. P-11-A was given by Rambha Bai based on the hear^; given by Pappu to Rambha B{ examined as PW-1 has not beerl |ay evidence which is said to have been ^i. Unfortunately Pappu who has been cross examined by the defence counsel in order to ascertain the correctn[ the Rojnarncha report Ex: P-1 1| informatlon to hts grand mother question. Evidence ofPW-1 Pat categoricaily stated that at the mother Rampyai-i Bai (since de|i stated that accused picked up t[ on t'ne body of Rampyari Bai an^ stated that it is true that thej consumed iiquor before the incii injuries whlle he was trying to disputed and in his cross examirl to show as to why this boy ha^ When Rampyari Bai was in Vn\ dying dedaration Ex. P-15 in the| iless of the facts which vi/ere mentioned i" -A that whether PW-1 Pappu gave the i(ot implicating the accused in the crime i". aibpu is cogsnt and clear. This wltness has relevant Sime-he was residina wit'n his ;eased) and the accused. He has a!so t[ie kerosene container, poured kerosene ^J set her on fire. This witness has cleariy deceased and the accused both had icfent. Witness Pappu PW-1 received burn e|i(tinguish the fire. This fact has not been ^ation nothing has been brought on record implicated the accused in a false case. i|i hospital and was receivlng treatment, |form of Deh.ati Naiisi was given by her to P.T.O. XI-HC-78 '3^ •<{M\v\»,eiTn'y'is, Rieiwy *11*IMI Sh*1|th ^ /T-;?^^.:;2-!)^.?,^^. ^0jg ^- 3TI^5T tra^T (<^lI^qi<iT) sn^rw R-ii* (RT 31I^T Stitif 6«llW(lf?(T31I^T t>i<<lCT<n-i tii>«-ii'fftec3'<Ri<<ii<. ^iSf^ITSTlSRT one T.P. Singh, S.!., PW-11 statement of Ex. P-15 in which who has stated that Rampyari Bai ga'.'e she had stated that accused was doubtina name the fidelity of the deceased asked the deceased that she which was denied by the deceE|sed ofthe accused, he poured kerc|sene her on fire. He has categpricj Rampyari Bai was not jn the s{ the evidence he has catego[ certificate on Ex. P-18 that R4i Therefore, in view of.the abov^ S. Jitpure to the extent that whs not in a position to s.peak, lose|s also stated that in the hosbital ly Rampyari Bai, on the fateful day he /as having re!ations with the o'ther person but that did not satisfy the conscience on the body of the deceased and set ally sSated that i't is incon-ect to say that :ate of giving statement. In paragraph 9 cf •iealiy stated that the duty doctor gave mpysri Bai is fit for giving the statement, evidence the evidence of PW-10 Dr, Smt. Therefore, there is no reason b|< made by the deceased RamFlyari further finds cofroboration by| present at the residence atthe n she was treating Rampyari Bai, she was s significance. Even other witnesses have sital also Rampyari Bai was spsaking. efore us to disbelieve t'ne dying deciaratiori yari Bai before PW-11 T.P. Singh Vi'hich the evidence of PW-1 Pappu who was ime of incident. P.T.O. XI-HC-78 sn^^"Se:-i?fWS^^s-:si.W/:S^^•;^'^^-'^::'s'^°SRi';?"^^s'aw^^ ^^^?:'^Bg^^^;!2;^ d^ >-<IW ICM FOTli'tt*!®,Rlallrig!l, *-ll*)P1FSt)*1|ch S-VM <.< ;.^<f<']c.><././.'n6T»fe © 3ii^i!B<<atn'(!ic<(;|islsl!i^ aiI^T wfoi.* cIsiT3TI^Ta>liti "^ TOnwgfersn^r 13. Npw comingto the evi deceased who has stated th the accused was doubting h| hostiie. He, however, hassl residing with Rambha Bai ans not the witness to the incideht whereas PW-1 Pappu jwho was residing with Rampyari Bai witnessed witness in the presence ofev especiaily whenthis witness t|as turned hostile. 14. .Therefore, for the for opinion that based on the d; Singh and the evidence of PV] jn the process of saving thej reached the conclusion that pouring kerosene-.on her bod; ..'» ... . . . 1 does not suffer from any il!eg^ +t-i|fc«l1^iiiydTff tei<!l ;<[»it<ii< A SV^tf SD^T •• ence of PW-5 Sanfosh, the other son of the It the deceased herself set on fire because br fidelity, this witness has been declared ated that at the time of incident he was not with the deceased and as such he was Ifhe.incident, therefore, the evidence ofthis dence of PW-1 Pappu, loses its significance jigoing reasons we are 6f tlie considered nng declaration Ex. P-15,given before T.P. M Pappu who himseif recseiyed burn |njuries |fe of his mother, the court below has rightly the accused set Rampyari Bai on fire after and as such the judgment of the triai Court ility or infirmity. , ' 15. In the result, the app^a! of the accused/appeiiant being devoid of substance isiliable to be dism|issed. It is accordingly dismissed. L.C.BI-I^DOO Jiidge I._Jj