Sakretish vs State

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, dated 08.06.2007 in S.C. No. 112 of 2006 whereby convicting the appellant under section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

The gist of the case in a nutshell is as follows:

i) On 25.12.2004 at 11.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between the accused and the victim girl when the accused told the victim girl that he is going to Melmaruvathur temple on the next day with his parents. Due to the said wordy quarrel, the accused poured kerosene on himself and on the victim girl and lit fire on himself and caught hold of the deceased. Due to which, the victim girl sustained severe burn injuries. A complaint was given at Kitchipalayam Police Station and on the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 3626 of 2004. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet has been filed for the offence under section 307 IPC.

ii) In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits and 6 material objects. The accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution case and he denied them as false. The accused examined himself as D.W.1 and marked 7 exhibits. On hearing the arguments of both sides and on scrutiny of the evidence and the available materials on record, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under section 326 IPC and passed the judgment of conviction and sentence as stated above. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that initially the appellant has given a complaint to the respondent police which was registered in Crime No. 3625 of 2004 under section 307 IPC but the respondent police has referred the said case as mistake of fact but no refer notice was served on the appellant. The prosecution ought to have placed both the cases before the trial Court to explain the injuries sustained by the accused but had not done so. Learned counsel would further submit that the accused also sustained burn injuries but the injuries sustained by the accused was not explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel would further submit that there are several infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1/victim girl and her evidence ought to have been rejected by the trial Court. Hence, the judgment of the trial court has to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

On the other hand Mr. V.MR.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the conviction and sentence passed by trial Court would submit that the trial Court had analysed the entire evidence and relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record has rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the conviction and sentence as stated above.

Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

Admittedly, the victim girl was four months pregnant at the time when she sustained burn injuries. It is also true that the appellant/accused also sustained injuries. According to the appellant, the victim girl had lit fire on him after pouring kerosene on him. However, the case of the prosecution is otherwise. The evidence let in by the prosecution discloses that due to family dispute she had poured kerosene on herself and on seeing it, the appellant had poured kerosene on himself and lit fire to himself and caught hold of the victim. From the evidence it is seen that the act of the appellant was done in a rash mood without any motivation or pre-meditation but due to sudden provocation. Even so, the appellant must pay for it.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the matter has been compromised between the appellant and the victim girl. A compromise petition has been filed and an affidavit of compromise has also been filed by the parties. In the compromise petition, it is stated as follows:

4. It is submitted that the appellant filed Divorce petition in H.M.O.P. No. 52/2009 before the Sub-Judge Court, Thiruppur, and the same was allowed on 9.9.2009 by exparte. The appellant''s wife Sandiya filed maintenance case in M.C. No. 5/2012 before Family Court, Salem for maintenance for herself and minor son Ragul and the same is pending.

It is submitted that the appellant sustained burn injuries and took treatment for 55 days and P.W.1 sustained burn injuries and took treatment for about 30 days. Considering the facts and circumstances, the appellant and P.W.1 compromised the dispute among themselves with the help of Panchayatdars, P.W.1 Sandiya is willing to receive Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh ) at the time of disposal of C.A. No. 509/2007 before High court, Madras, Rs. 1 lakhs (Rupees One lakh) at the time of disposal of M.C. No. 5/2012 before Family Court, Salem, for full settlement for her and minor son Ragul.

Considering the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and also taking into account that the victim girl does not want to precipitate the matter further, I am of the considered opinion that this matter should be now given a quietus. Therefore, I am of the view that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the court below, the sentence to be imposed on the appellant could be modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.

In the result,

i) The criminal appeal is partly allowed.

ii) The judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem in S.C. No. 112/2006 dated 08.06.2007 as against the appellant is confirmed, however, the sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

iii) The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.

iv) The fine amount imposed by the trial court stands confirmed.