Ramdayal and Another vs State of M.P.

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—This Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Appellants, who are two in number, is directed against their conviction u/s 307/34 IPC. Vide judgment of the court below dt. 8th December 2004 in Sessions Trial Case No. 107/04, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

I have heard the arguments of Mr. Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants arid of Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent /State. I have also perused the entire record of the trial court and have given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties.

Briefly stated facts of the case giving arise to this appeal are as follows:

(i) The Appellants were tried in the court below for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC on accusation against them that they in furtherance of their common intention had set P.W.4. Gajan Lal ablazed by pouring petrol on him in the incident that took place at National Auto Center Sawarkar Market, A.B. Road around 8 a.m. on 25.2.2004. The injured P.W.4 had suffered 42% bum injuries and had remained in hospital as an indoor patient for about a month. The defence set up by the Appellants during trial was that the injured P.W.4 Gajan Lal had problem with his wife, who was not staying with him and for that reason he got himself burnt by sprinkling kerosene oil over his body. According to the Appellants, they were falsely implicated by injured P.W.4 Gajan Lal and his father-in-law P.W.5 Mangal Singh, as they were suspecting him of taking away wife of P.W.4 Gajan Lal from his custody.

(ii) The injured P.W.4 Gajan Lal was got medically examined from P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Gupta and he has proved the M.L.C. of the injured in his statement as document Ex.P/4. As per testimony of P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Gupta, the burn injuries suffered by the injured were by petrol and not by kerosene oil. No suggestion was given to P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Gupta that the injured had suffered burn injuries by kerosene oil, rather Dr. C.M. Gupta in his cross-examination has amplified that he has opined the burn injuries to have been suffered by the injured by petrol as he himself had been using petrol for his vehicle. From the testimony of P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Gupta, no manner of doubt is left to conclude that the injured had suffered injuries in the incident by pouring of petrol over his body. The question that now arises is whether the Appellants were responsible for the burn injuries suffered by the injured in the incident.

(iii) The FIR of the incident was lodged by P.W.5 Mangal Singh, father-in-law of the injured P.W.4 Gajan Lal. He in his testimony has testified that on the date of incident he had received an information around 8.00-8-30 a.m. while he was busy in his business of selling vegetables that his son-in-law P.W.4 Gajan Lal had been burnt by the Appellants. He in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion of the defence that the Appellants have been falsely implicated because he had withheld an amount of Rs. 5000/- due from him to Appellant No. 2 and further on account of the fact that his daughter was not residing with his injured son-in-law P.W.4 Gajan Lal.

(iv) P.W.4 Gajan Lal was the star witness of the prosecution and he in his testimony has categorically deposed that Appellant No. 2 had caught of his hands and Appellant No. 1 had poured petrol over his body and then set him ablazed. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he himself had poured kerosene oil over his body and set himself ablazed because his wife was not staying with him. He further denied the suggestion of the defence that he used to suspect Appellant No. 1 of enticing away his wife. There is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination either of P.W.4 or P.W.5, which may create a doubt on their version regarding the manner and the role attributed to the Appellants in the incident as stated by them in their respective testimony.

Mr. Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants has argued that the Appellants, who are real brothers, were falsely implicated by P.W.5 Mangal Singh because they were on inimical terms since the injured P.W.4 Gajan Lal used to suspect them of taking away his wife from his custody. learned Counsel has further argued that P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are related to each others as son-in-law and father-in-law are interested witnesses and the court should not give much credence to their testimony, as according to him the independent public witnesses of the incident namely P.W.1 and P.W.2 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. This argument in my opinion has no force. Merely because public witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 were hostile to the prosecution case can not be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.4 and P. W.5, who both were the star witnesses of the prosecution. In fact, the testimony Of P.W.4 and P.W.5 find ample corroboration from the testimony of P.W.3 Dr. C.M. Gupta. The alleged previous animosity between the parties is a double edged weapon and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the alleged animosity between them can not be said to be a ground for false implication of the Appellants.

From the facts of the prosecution on record, it stands proved that the\\lAppellants were the real culprits responsible for pouring petrol over the body of the injured P.W.4 Gajan Lal, on account of which he suffered 42% burn injuries in the incident. The intention on their part to kill the injured by their act of pouring petrol and then setting him ablazed is clearly -borne out. It can not be believed for a moment that the Appellants would not know the consequences of their act of setting a person ablazed by pouring petrol over him.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court against the Appellants. The said judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Mr. Madhukar Kulshrestha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the impugned sentence of Appellant No. 1 was not suspended and according to him he .might have been released from jail after completing his term of imprisonment of four years awarded to him by the court below. In view of the same, the Jail Superintendent, Gwalior is directed to release Appellant No. 1 immediately, if not already released, in case he has already completed the sentence awarded to him by the court below.

As far as Appellant No. 2 is concerned, he had remained in custody as under trial prisoner from 27th February 2004 to qfh March 2004 and thereafter from the date of impugned judgment dt. 8.12.2004 till his sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dt. 2nd February 2005. Appellant No. 2 is directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remaining sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the court below. In case he fails to surrender of his own, then the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Shivpuri is directed to initiate necessary process for ensuring arrest of Appellant No. 2 and send him to jail for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment.

In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed.