Huzra Bee vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and others

Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence handed down by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No. 156/2005, whereby he has been found guilty of having committed murder of Guddi Bai.

The date of the incident is 21.5.2005 at about 9 P.M. near Bus Stand, Bareli in District Raisen. The prosecution case in short is that deceased Guddi Bai was a widow and appellant wanted to marry her. When she refused, appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. She was taken to the Community Health Center, Bareli, where she was given treatment by Dr. M. K. Jain (PW2) and after giving her the first aid treatment Intimation was sent to the Naib Tashildar P. K. Kaurav (PW11), who came and recorded the First Dying Declaration at about 11.20 P.M. on the night, soon after the incident, in the question and answer form. Before recording the dying declaration, Dr. M. K. Jain (PW2) had certified that the patient was in a fit mental condition to give the dying declaration. She was the shifted to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal where she succumbed to injuries, therefore, a case under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against the appellant and

after completing the investigation charge sheet was filed and appellant put to trial for an offense punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C.

Appellant abjured his guilt. In the trial Court, prosecution examined 14 witnesses to bring home the charge. After considering the prosecution evidence, the trial Court found appellant guilty of the charge and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine default stipulations.

Out of 14 prosecution witnesses relevant witnesses, for the purpose of deciding this appeal, are Dr. M. K. Jain (PW2), the Medical Officer of Community Health Center, Bareli. Nasir. (PW7), Arif (PW13) another son of the deceased, Jamuna Prasad (PW3), the neighbour and Mohd. Ismile (PW8).

Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that no case has been made out against the appellant and he has wrongly been convicted by the trial Court. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, is unsustainable in law and he deserves to be acquitted.

On the other hand, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that there is no merit and substance in the appeal because besides Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/17, which was lodged by the deceased herself, there is a dying declaration Ex.P. 6 recorded by the Naib Tahsildar P. K. Kaurav P.W.11 after Dr. M. K. Jain certified that the patient was in fit mental condition to give the statement. The said dying declaration is Ex. P/6, which was recorded soon after the incident. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at around 9.O'' clock in the night. It was also submitted that the incident was witnessed by Arif (PW13) son of the deceased and Nasir (PW7) another son of the deceased. That apart, Guddi Bai made a statement to Jamuna Prasad (PW3) and Mohd. Ismile (PW8) regarding the appellant''s putting her ablaze after pouring kerosene. He further submitted that considering the evidence on record against the appellant, trial Court committed no error in convicting him for an offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

We have heard rival submission at length. Perused the record of the trial Court.

There is no dispute that the deceased died of a homicidal death. Even otherwise, there is sufficient evidence available on record to prove this fact in the form of the postmortem examination report Ex. P/18 of Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta (PW12). In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to Cardiac Respiratory failure, as a result of burn and its complication. Duration of the death was within 24 hours of the postmortem examination and the nature of death was homicidal. In view of this evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased died a homicidal death.

Now the question is whether the appellant is guilty of an offense punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. For this purpose, we have examined the evidence. The Dehati Nalishi Ex.P. 17 of the incident was lodged by Guddi Bai on 22.30 hours of 21.5.2005, wherein she has named the appellant as the author of the crime. She was taken to the Community

Health Center, Bareli, where she was examined by Dr. M. K. Jain (PW2), the Medical Officer posted in the Community Health Center, Bareli. He noticed the smell of kerosene and extensive burns to the extent of 50%. Because of the extent of burn injuries suffered by Guddi Bai, she was referred to the Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. Before she was shifted, her dying declaration was recorded by P. K. Kaurav, (PW11). Before he started recording the dying declaration, Dr. M. K. Jain gave the certificate that the patient was in a fit mental condition to give the statement. The time mentioned is 11.05 hours of 21.5.2005. The dying declaration is Ex. P/6. The gist of the dying declaration coupled with the Dehati Nalishi is that Guddi Bai had gone to grocery shop to purchase a matchbox, where the appellant was standing and proposed marriage to Guddi Bai when she spurned the proposal, appellant poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Now, we have examined the dying declaration coupled with the Dehati Nalisi. One thing is very clear that appellant asked Guddi Bai to marry him and when she refused, appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire. After recording the dying declaration, she was taken to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, where she succumbed to injuries. The topographical diagram in the autopsy report clearly shows that the deceased sustained severe injuries in the lower limbs and in the opinion of doctor, death was due to Cardiac Respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complication.

Thus, we find that deceased died of burn injuries as has been found by the trial Court and this finding does not require any interference.

Now the question is whether the appellant has committed the crime or not. In this connection, we have perused the evidence of Nasir (PW7), Arif (PW13), both are the sons of deceased, Jamuna Prasad (PW3), the neighbour and Mohd. Ismile (PW8). All these four witnesses categorically say that appellant poured the kerosene and set Guddi to ablaze.

In view of the consistencies of statements of these four witnesses, we find that the appellant is the author of the crime and was rightly convicted by the trial Court for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. We, therefore, find no merit and substance in the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.

Ordered accordingly.