Judgment:
V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore in sessions case No. 61/94 on 8-1-1996 convicting the appellant-accused of murder and sentencing him for life imprisonment.
2. Facts giving rise to the prosecution and ultimate conviction stated briefly are that in the morning of 28th July, 1994, first information report was lodged in the Police Station, Jalore that the accused Ghewar Chand had quarrel with his wife in the morning, as a result of which, he assaulted her and thereafter, threw kerosene on her body and put her to fire. On the shouts of the wife, he threw a bucketful of water on her body and ran away. Subsequent investigations resulted in arrest of the accused and after investigation challan, prosecuting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the evidence as standard by the prosecution and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to conclusion that the accused was guilty of murdering his wife and therefore, proceeded to convict him as aforesaid by the impugned order.
3. With the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor, we have gone through the entire record of the case. We scrutinized the documentary evidence and have re-appreciated the oral evidence on record.
4. P.W. 3 Suresh aged 20 years in this case is the son of the deceased and accused who has stated that his mother was burnt to death by his father accused present in Court. He goes on to describe gory incident to the best of his memory, ability and agony. He has stated that he with his grandmother (mother of mother) and other brother and sister was on the roof of the house when he heard the shouts of his mother and came down to see his father pouring kerosene on the body of his mother and lighting the match stick to alight fire. When the mother was on fire, she shouted and the accused poured a bucketful of water on her and ran away. The witness then slates that it was usual for his father to assault his mother. He had taken mother to the hospital where she recorded her dying declaration to which the son has subscribed his signature. The son has then stated in his cross-examination that he saw his mother burning and saw his father putting the mother to the fire. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to shake the testimony of the son against the father who witnessed the death of his mother.
5. P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of the accused and the mother of the deceased. She has stated that at about 9.00 in the morning of Shrawan month, she was on the terrace with her grand children, when she saw the accused pouring kerosene on the body of her daughter and put her to fire at that time. According to the witness, her daughter was sitting in the courtyard and was dragged to the 'Choolah', where she was put to fire. She also stated that she saw this, sitting on the terrace and saw the accused pouring bucketful of water on the burning daughter. The cross examination of this witness unfortunate mother does not reveal any reason on the basis of which, her testimony could be doubted.
6. P.W. 3 Insaaf s/o Rafique Mohammed is a neighbour of the accused Chewar Chand. He states that he came out of his house on the relevant day on hearing noise to see accused Ghewar Chand running with naked feet. When the accused opened the door of his house, he along with others who had assembled there saw the wife of the accused burning and shouting that she has been burnt. The witness then states that the victim was taken to the hospital by P.W. 1 Suresh and others in taxi. He also states that the accused used to always ill-treat and assault the wife. The entire cross-examination of this witness is ineffective. He is independent witness staying in the neighbour hood belonging to a different religion and has no grudge against the accused.
7. P.W. 4 Ashok Kumar is yet another neighbour who is witness to the memo of the dead body as executed by the police. He also says that he saw accused going away from his house and that the accused and the deceased used to fight almost regularly. Nothing therefore, turns on the evidence of this witness.
8. P.W. 5 is the daughter of the accused and the deceased aged 11 years, when her testimony was recorded. She understood the gravity of oath and stating the truth. The unfortunate child has deposed;
^^esjs ikik vkSj eEeh esa igysrks yMkbZ gqbZ Fkh] nksuksa uhps pkSd esa yMs Fks A esjs ikik us dgk fd rqe uhpsvk;s rks rqEgsa Hkh ekj nwaxk blfy;s ge uhps ugha x;s A ge pkjksa Mkxys ls ns[kjg Fks A ekjdwV djds esjs ikik us esjh ekrk ij dsjkslhu Mky fn;k A esjs ikikdsjkslhu Mkydj rwyh yxkbZ A rwyh tykus ls esjh eka ds 'jhj esa vkx yx xbZ Fkh Avkx yxus ij esjh eka us gkyk fd;k A gkyk djrs le; og dg jgh Fkh fd ^^eq>s tykjgk gS&tyk; jgk gS** fQj esjs ikik us esjh eka ij ikuh Mky fn;k A fQj esjsikik uaxs iSj gh njoktk [kksydj Hkkx x;s A**
There is almost in cross-examination of this child clinches the entire case.
9. P.W. 6 is the punch witness who was present when the accused was arrested. P.W. 7 is another neighbour who saw that the deceased was taken (to the hospital by the son of the accused. P.W. 8 is the Dr. who conducted the post mortem and deposed that the death occurred due to 80% burn. P.W. 9 Kishan Singh is the Doctor who examined the accused and has deposed that the injuries found on the body of the accused could be found on a person trying to put off on fire. The evidence of this Doctor and the injury of the persons thus, corroborates the prosecution case that it was the accused who put the victim on fire.
10. P.W. 10 Durast Dan is the Investigating Officer who produce the necessary documents executed by different persons during the course of investigation. He has deposed in his cross-examination that when the dying declaration was recorded, the deceased was in conscious state and was properly speaking.
11. P.W. 11 is the Additional District Collector who was at the relevant time working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalore and who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. He has stated in unequivocal terms as under :
^^fpfdRlkf/kdkjh us eq>s crk;kFkk fd Jhefr ve`fr c;ku nsus esa leFkZ gS] ve`rh dh vka[ks [kqyh gqbZ Fkh ogcksy jgh Fkh A Jherh ve`fr ds c;ku eSus mlds dgsa vuqlkj fy[ks Fks tks c;kuizn'kZ ih 10 gS] bu c;kuks esa , ls ch LFkku ij Jhefr ve`fr us dgk Fkk ^^vktlqcg djhc 11 cts eSa esjs jgoklh; edku esa cSBh gqbZ Fkh ml cDr esjk ifr ?ksojpanesjs dejs esa vk;k rFkk eq>s [khap dj vkaxu esa ys vk;k vkSj ykrs gh dsjkslhudk fMCck tks Hkjk gqvk Fkk dks esjs ij mMSy fn;k o ekphl dh rwyh esjs diMks essayxkdj eq>s tyk fn;k** bR;kfn A ve`fr us ;g c;ku LoSPNk ls fn;s Fks A c;kuiwjs esjs gkFk ds fy[ks gq, gSa A
He thus, proves the dying declaration made by the deceased. P.W. 12 Arshad Ali is another punch witness who had also seen the deceased on fire in the house of the accused. P.W. 13 is the Police Constable who had taken the dead body for post mortem. Thus, on the basis of this evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of murder.
12. We have re-appreciated the evidence as aforesaid and we are also firmly of the view that accused is the only person who put Amriti mercilessly to death by putting her on fire. The entire ocular testimony duly corroborated by documentary evidence in the shape of dying declaration duly proved by the Officer recording it proving guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no error whatever in the order of conviction and sentence. We hereby affirm the same and dismiss the appeal.