AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal appeal against conviction filed on behalf of the accused/appellant Kumar Singh Thakur is directed against judgment dated 08.04.2004 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No.117/2003, whereby the accused Kumar Singh Thakur was convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife Pammi Singh and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine in the sum of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.
The prosecution case before the trial Court in brief was as hereunder: Deceased Pammi Singh had married accused Kumar Singh Thakur about 10 years before the date of the incident. They had three daughters and a son. On 13.03.2003, accused Kumar Singh Thakur had beaten deceased Pammi Singh with a stick causing injuries to her back and waist.
Pammi Singh had lodged a report of the aforesaid incident in P.S.-Amlai, District- Shahdol, the same day. Subsequently, on 16.03.2003, at about 7:00 p.m., the deceased did not feel well; therefore, she was lying in her house covering herself with a
shawl. At around 7.30 p.m., accused Kumar Singh Thakur returned home and asked the deceased to cook meals; whereon, the deceased expressed her inability to prepare meals on account of illness. Accused Kumar Singh Thakur started to abuse the deceased and dragged her down from the
Cot. He took up a jerry can lying nearby and poured kerosene upon her. Thereafter, he lit a match-stick and set her ablaze.
Pammi Singh started to burn; whereon, the accused took his children and went outside. Pammi came out and ran towards the police station screaming on her way. She was spotted by her neighbours in aforesaid condition. Since, all her clothes had burnt, she reached the police station in a naked condition.
Assistant-Sub-Inspector, R.B. Pandey (PW-11) recorded the First Information Report (Ex.P/15) lodged by the deceased.
She was immediately referred to Community Health Centre, Dhanpuri. At about 8.20 p.m. the same evening, duty doctor K.K. Gautam (PW-8) examined the victim. On being asked by the police, he also recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at about 11.30 p.m. At that time, she was conscious and was in a fit state of body and mind to record the same.
Thereafter, the deceased was referred to District Hospital, Shahdol. Since, no Executive Magistrate was available, Dr. Mahanti (PW-7), the duty doctor was asked to record the dying declaration. Since, he had no experience of recording a dying declaration, he did not do the same. Thereafter, at about 10.45 p.m., Assistant-Sub-Inspector, R.B. Pandey (PW-11), after obtaining the certificate of fitness from the doctor, recorded her dying declaration. The deceased expired on
18.03.2003. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against accused Kumar Singh Thakur. The accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he took the defence that at the time of the incident, his wife Pammi Singh was threatening him that she would commit suicide by setting herself afire. She also threatened that she would burn all her four children and would get the accused falsely implicated; therefore, the accused had gone to police station to lodge a report against his wife. He came back with the police to his
house. He found that his wife was lying at home in an unconscious condition after suffering burns. Thereafter, the police took him and his wife to the police station. His wife regained consciousness but she was unable to speak. Next day she expired but the police has falsely implicated him in the case.
After the trial, the trial Court had held that the accused had poured kerosene upon the deceased from a Jerry-can and had set her afire with a match-stick. As a result, the deceased suffered about 100% burns. However, before her death, she managed to give at least three dying declarations to two different authorities, which were sufficient to convict the accused for the murder of his wife Pammi Singh.
Consequently, accused Kumar Singh Thakur was convicted and sentenced as herein above stated.
Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence mainly on the ground that the deceased had suffered 100 % burns. In these circumstances, it was not possible for her to have travelled a distance of about 2 kms. from her residence to the police station and lodge a report. The victim survived for more than 24 hours after the incident; however, the police had failed to get her dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate. Since she was 100 % burnt, it was not possible for her to put thumb impression upon the dying declaration. In these circumstances, the dying declaration recorded by Dr. K.K.
Gautam (PW-8), which is purported to have been thumb-marked by her, cannot be relied upon. It has also be contended that no one saw the deceased running from her residence to the police station.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment.
On perusal of record and due consideration of rival contentions, we are of the view that this criminal appeal must fail for the reasons herein after stated.
The incident is said to have taken place at about 7:00 p.m. on 16.03.2016. Draupadi Devi (PW-5) has stated that Pammi Singh lives in front of her house. In the evening of the incident, Pammi was screaming "Bachao Bachao". She saw deceased Pammi standing in her door way in a burning condition. Thereafter, she fell down. As she was afraid, she went inside. Another neighbour, Raj Kishore Mishra (PW-3) has stated that at the time of the incident, he heard the noise that "Kumar's wife has burnt". On hearing the commotion, he came out. He saw Pammi coming out her house. She was screaming "Bachao Bachao". All her clothes had burnt and she was naked. She was running in southern direction in which the police station is also situated.
Assistant Sub-Inspector R.B. Pandey (PW-11), who was posted in P.S.-Amlai has stated that at about 7:00 p.m. on 16.03.2003, the deceased had come alone to the police station. All her clothes had burnt. She was shouting and gasping. She fell down on the steps of the police station. They took her up and propped her against a pillar. They gave her a blanket to cover herself. At about 7.45 p.m., he recorded the First Information Report (Ex.P/15) lodged by the deceased
Pammi. This witness has further stated that thereafter, he referred her to the hospital. Dr. K.K.Gautam (PW-8) has stated that on 16.03.2003, he was posted as Assistant Surgeon in Community Health Centre, Dhanpuri. On that day, the deceased Pammi Singh was brought to him in a burnt condition. He discovered that she was 100% burnt and was smelling of kerosene. Her clothes had stuck to her body and her general condition was poor.
This witness has further stated that at about 8.30 p.m., he received a requisition from P.S -Amlai for recording dying declaration of the deceased (Ex.P/11). At that time, Pammi was fully conscious and was in a fit state to give dying declaration. She remained conscious during the entire length of dying declaration. The certificate given by him in this regard is Ex.P/12.
Assistant Sub-Inspector, R.B. Pandey (PW-11) has further stated that at about 10.45 p.m. as well, he had recorded the statement of deceased Pammi Singh. At the time of taking the statement, Pammi Singh was in a fit state to speak and she had capacity to think. He had received a certificate from the duty doctor with regard to the deceased Pammi Singh. The certificate is Ex.P/18.
Thus, we see that there are three dying declarations recorded by two different authorities of two different government departments. The First Information Report (Ex.P/15) has also acquired the status of a dying declaration with the death of the maker thereof. All three dying declarations are similar in nature. The gist of aforesaid dying declarations is that about 3-4 days before the date of the present incident, Kumar Singh Thakur, husband of the deceased Pammi had beaten her. As a result, she did not feel well and was lying on the cot. Her husband came and asked her to cook meals; however, she expressed her inability to do the same. He poured kerosene upon the deceased from a jerry-can and set her ablaze by using a match-stick.
Thereafter, he left. The deceased ran towards the police station in a burnt condition and lodged the First Information Report immediately.
As such, we find that all three dying declarations are similar and in each one of them, the deceased has held her husband accused Kumar Singh Thakur responsible for her
death. Witnesses Vatur Singh (PW-2) and Raj Kishore Mishra (PW-3) had seen her in a burnt condition. Raj Kishore Mishra (PW-3) had seen her screaming and running towards the police station. It may be noted that at least two witnesses namely Raj Kishore Mishra (PW-3) and R.B. Pandey (PW-
11) have categorically stated that deceased had covered the distance between her residence and the police station on foot.
It is true that as per the medico-legal report, the deceased was 100% burnt; however, none of the two doctors examined by the prosecution had ruled out the possibility that a woman, who is 100% burnt, would not be able to cover such a distance on foot. In addition thereto, the deceased covered aforesaid distance on foot, has also been supported by the dying declarations. Thus, this fact cannot be said to be inherently improbable.
During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has laid great stress by the fact that the deceased was burnt 100%. It has been contended that in aforesaid circumstances, the skin of the deceased would also be burnt and the deceased would not have been able to put her thumb impression upon the dying declaration recorded by Dr. K.K.
Gautam (PW-8). It may be noted in this regard that 100% burns did not mean that every square inch of the body of the victim would be burnt. Dr. K.K. Gautam has categorically stated that he had got the thumb impression of the victim put on the dying declaration; therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention of the Court to the statements made by Raj Kishore Mishra (PW-3), who has stated that Babulal's wife had told him that deceased Pammi had told Babulal's wife that she was dying by setting herself afire but Draupadi Devi (PW-5), Babulal's wife has not stated that Pammi Singh had told her that she herself had set her on fire. On the contrary, she has stated that she did not know as to how the deceased Pammi Singh got burnt.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also invited attention of the Court to the statement of Umendra Singh (PW-4), who is uncle of the deceased. Umendra Singh has stated that he had gone to the Shahdol hospital after the incident to meet Pammi. She was 100% burnt and was in a critical condition; however, she could speak a little. On being asked, Pammi had told him that she had asked her daughter not to watch television but she did not listen to her; therefore, Pammi was enraged and had set herself afire. This witness further states that Pammi did not told her that her husband Kumar Singh Thakur had set her on fire.
It may be noted in this regard that before she succumbed to her injuries, Pammi had given three dying declarations. At the time of giving each of one those dying declarations, she was in a fit condition to give the same. She has unequivocally stated that she was set on fire by her husband. She has also given a clear and cogent reason for her husband to set her on fire. Pammi had four children, the youngest being 8 months old. In these circumstances, it appears highly unlikely that she would commit suicide. It appears equally unlikely that even if she had committed suicide, she would falsely implicate her husband in the crime and jeopardize the future of her four children. In this backdrop, the statement of uncle, Umendra Singh (PW-4) appears to be prompted by worldly considerations because had the appellant been sentenced to imprisonment, it would have meant that mother's family of the deceased would have had to accept the responsibility of raising 4 minor children of the deceased. Thus, the statement of Umendra Singh (PW-4) cannot be relied upon. In aforesaid circumstances, the defence taken by the accused/appellant also does not seems to be worthy of credence. Moreover, it appears highly unlikely that police would accompany a layman to his residence simply because the man had complained that his wife is threatening to commit suicide and set her children on fire. The story narrated by the deceased in the dying declaration is quite natural and is worth believing. There is no reason to doubt that the deceased had not given such dying declarations.
Though, there is no other piece of evidence available in the case but it is settled position of law that conviction can be based solely upon a dying declaration, if it appears to be true and voluntarily. In the present case, there are three similar dying declarations recorded by two different authorities.
There is no reason to suspect that these dying declarations not voluntarily. There is also no reason to suspect that either of the aforesaid dying declarations was untrue.
As such, on the basis of aforesaid three dying declarations the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the appellant Kumar Singh Thakur had committed murder of his wife Pammi Singh by pouring kerosene upon her and setting her ablaze, as a result of a minor provocation. Even if it is assumed for the sake of the arguments that the provocation was too trivial and there was no motive for the appellant to kill his wife. There is no iota of doubt that he had poured so much kerosene upon her that she suffered 100 % burns. Thus, he can be attributed at least with the intention to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; therefore, the act of the appellant would come under the ambit of "thirdly" in Section 300 of the I.P.C. defining the offence of murder.
In these circumstances, the trial Court committed no illegality or impropriety in convicting the appellant, warranting interference by this Court.
Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant imposed by the trial Court is affirmed.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the IPC and the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court is affirmed.