Kamal Kishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4413 MP

               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                               1
                                            Cr.R.No.3350/2019
             Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Gwalior Bench Dated 17.08.2021

      Shri Dharmendra Rishishwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri     Anil   Shukla,   learned   Public   Prosecutor   for   the

respondent/State.

Shri Vikram Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the

complainant.

Heard finally through physical hearing.

1. The instant criminal revision under Section 53 of Juvenile

Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short

"Act of 2015") filed by the petitioner against the judgment

dated 05-07-2019 passed by the First Additional Judge to the

Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal

Appeal No.375/2015 affirming the judgment dated 14-10-2015

passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind in

Criminal Case No.124/2011 whereby the petitioner (the then

juvenile) has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302

and 304-B of IPC and sentenced him to send into special home

for a period of three years.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 24-06-2011 Chhoti

Bai (since deceased) admitted in Saraf Hospital, Gwalior in a

burnt state. On the information of concerned Hospital, Naib

Tahsildar, Gwalior recorded dying declaration of deceased

Chhoti Bai. Thereafter, during treatment, she died on 03-07-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.R.No.3350/2019 Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

2011. On her death Marg No.50/2011 was registered at Police

Station Dehat District Bhind. Investigation was conducted into

the matter and thereafter on the basis of investigation and dying

declaration of deceased Chhoti Bai recorded by Naib Tahsildar,

Gwalior, case for the offence under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A

of IPC at Crime No.231/2011 was registered against the

petitioner (the then juvenile) and thereafter charge-sheet was

filed by the prosecution before the competent Court of law.

3. Since at the time of incident, petitioner was juvenile, therefore,

trial was conducted by Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind. Charges

for the offence under Sections 302 and 304-B of IPC were

framed by the Juvenile Justice Board against the petitioner. The

petitioner/accused abjured his guilt. The trial was conducted.

On behalf of prosecution, 9 witnesses were examined and on

behalf of defence no witness was examined, only statement of

accused/petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

Juvenile Justice Board, after considering the evidence and

material produced before it, convicted the petitioner as referred

above.

4. Being crestfallen by the judgment of conviction of Juvenile

Justice Board, Criminal Appeal No.375/2015 was preferred by

the petitioner before First Additional Judge to the Court of First

Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. The appellate Court after THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.R.No.3350/2019 Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

considering rival submissions of the parties, affirmed the

judgment of conviction and dismissed the appeal of petitioner.

Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below is illegal

and contrary to law. Petitioner has been falsely implicated just

because of some ulterior motive of complainant party. Deceased

Chhoti Bai died while cooking at the moment when she was

pouring kerosene oil in mud oven. Thus, prayed for allowing of

this revision petition and setting aside of impugned judgment of

conviction passed by the Courts below.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as

counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions and

submitted that petitioner is the sole accused who killed the

deceased Chhoti Bai by pouring kerosene oil and setting her at

fire. Perusal of Dying Declaration recorded by Naib Tahsildar

clearly shows that it is the petitioner who killed the deceased

Chhoti Bai for not fulfilling the demand of dowry of golden ring

and chain. Thus, prayed for dismissal of revision petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of

the Courts below.

8. This is a case where a newly wedded wife has been murdered by

his juvenile husband (present petitioner) within 2 years one THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.R.No.3350/2019 Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

month of her marriage. Father and mother of the deceased

namely Ramprakash (PW-1) and Ramkali (PW-2) categorically

supported the case of prosecution. They specifically deposed

before the trial Court that the petitioner/accused used to demand

golden ring and chain and when they failed to fulfill his

demand, he killed their daughter deceased Chhoti Bai.

9. Ex-P/9 is the dying declaration of deceased Chhoti Bai,

recorded in full consciousness of the deceased, in categoric and

explicit term establishes the fact that when deceased was

cooking food, petitioner came, poured kerosene oil and set her

at fire. Deceased Chhoti Bai clearly stated in her dying

declaration that it was only her husband who is responsible for

her death and no aspersion has been levelled by the deceased

against her in-laws.

10. Perusal of record indicates that it is a open and shut case of

murder of deceased Chhoti Bai and prosecution has proved his

case beyond reasonable doubt. Although accused tried to

establish that deceased Chhoti Bai died while cooking food but

he failed to prove this fact by adducing plausible and cogent

evidence. Juvenile Justice Board, Bhind as well as appellate

Court -First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhind did not commit any error in appreciating

the evidence and statements of prosecution witnesses.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

Cr.R.No.3350/2019 Kamal Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

11. No fault can be found with the abovesaid findings given by the

Juvenile court and the appellate court especially in view of the

limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, no case for interference

is made out.

12. Perusal of record indicates that during trial petitioner suffered

incarceration of 52 days and during appeal he suffered

incarceration of 36 days and after judgment of appellate Court

petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 15-07-2019,

since then he is in special home.

13. Accordingly, the revision petition preferred by the

petitioner/accused sans merits and is hereby dismissed. In view

of the judgment of Courts below, petitioner is in special home

and he has to undergo whole sentence of 3 years to be remained

in special home.

14. Copy of this order be sent to the Courts below for information

and necessary compliance.

                                                                                     (Anand Pathak)
Anil*                                                                                   Judge
   ANIL       Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
              CHAURASIYA
              DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF


   KUMAR
              MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
              ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
              PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
              postalCode=474001, st=Madhya

   CHAURASI   Pradesh,
              2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d0
              68b51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e6


   YA
              7cdc7df50f, cn=ANIL KUMAR
              CHAURASIYA
              Date: 2021.08.18 14:29:16 -07'00'