AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the instant appeal, challenge has been made to the order of conviction and sentence dated 24-01-2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge
/Special Judge, Mandla in S.T.No.39/2006, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 306 of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to suffer further R.I. for 1 year and under Section 506-II of IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
The prosecution case in short is that on 10-01-2006 at the place of incident i.e. Gajegaon Baheratola, the appellant had threatened deceased
Ku.Pushpa Bai alias Saraswati Bai Pandre with dire consequence and forced her to marry. When she refused to merry with him, then the appellant
threatened to kill her, as a result of which, on 10-01- 2006 deceased Ku, Pushpabai alias Saraswati Bai committed suicide by pouring kerosene
oil on her and set fire.
The deceased was taken to the hospital and her dying declaration Ex.P-17 was recorded by Gopal Prasad Soni, Naib Tehsildar(PW-15). She
died and thereafter the postmortem was conducted. She died due to excessive burn injuries. After that, the police has registered the offence under
sections 306 and 506-II of IPC.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has undergone the sentence of 103 days out of 7 years and no case for
abatement is made out.
The dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate PW-15 Gopal Prasad Soni, (Ex.P-17). Before recording the statement, the same was
certified by the Doctor that the patient was conscious and was capable of giving statement. In the dying declaration, she has made categorical
statement that the appellant was forcing her to marry and also stated that in case she would not marry, she would be killed by him. Thus, there was
constant physical and mental torture to the deceased, which amounts to ''abatement'' in view of the facts of the present case. Thereafter, she had
poured kerosene oil on her and set fire.
In view of the certification by the Doctor about the mental condition of the deceased and as the statement has been recorded by the Magistrate,
the learned counsel for the appellant could not assail the dying declaration duly recorded by the Magistrate. No other point is argued.
In view of the aforesaid facts that the prosecution has successfully proved the dying declaration and the validity of the said dying declaration
could not be challenged by the appellant and the allegation against the appellant amounts to abatement, I do not find any error in the order of
conviction and sentence and the appeal sans merit, hence no interference is required in the order of conviction and sentence.Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.