Udaylal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5595 Raj

2023:RJ-JD:24848

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1107/2021

Udaylal S/o Ramchandra Salvi, Aged About 25 Years, Kherpura,
P.s. Parsoli Dist. Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail,
Chittorgarh).
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                  Judgment

Judgment pronounced on : 04/08/2023
Judgment reserved on : 25/07/2023
By the Court :

1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section

374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated

24.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Begun, District Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.91/2021, whereby

he has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the

IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 years

alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

further to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment.

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the

case are that on 19.05.2017, a Parcha Bayan of complainant Smt.

Fori Salvi was recorded at the Sanwaliya Ji Hospital, Chittorgarh to

2023:RJ-JD:24848 (2 of 7) [CRLAS-1107/2021]

the effect that her marriage was earlier solemnized with one

Dinesh Salvi about 10 years ago, but later on they got separated

as per social customs and she was living at her parental house at

Muroli. Around 3 years prior to the incident, her Nata marriage

was solemnized with the present appellant Udailal Salvi, resident

of Kherpura and since then she was residing at her matrimonial

home. A male child named Vikas aged 2 years was begotten from

this marriage. On the day of recording the Parcha Bayan, in the

morning at about 09.30-10 am. she and her husband were at

home. She wore a transparent stole. Her husband forbade her to

wear such stole, upon which she wore another stole. Her husband

poured on her kerosene lying in a half filled 5 liter container and

set fire. On hearing her cries, her sister-in-law Mangi Bai came

there and doused the fire. Her brother-in-law (sister's husband)

Kalu also came and put out fire. She was taken to Parsoli

Hospital, from where she was referred to Chittorgarh, where she

was admitted in Trauma Ward. It was also stated that on that day,

Gangoj ceremony was going on in their family at the house of

Banshilal and Mandanlal.

3. On the basis of aforesaid Parcha Bayan, FIR No.66/2017 was

registered at the Police Station Parsoli and investigation was

commenced. During the course of investigation, spot documents

were prepared, burnt clothes of the victim were recovered,

statements of the witnesses were recorded, the accused was

arrested and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet

2023:RJ-JD:24848 (3 of 7) [CRLAS-1107/2021]

for the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC was

submitted against the appellant.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant

for the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC and

upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During

the course of trial, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and

23 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was

sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in

which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed that the

witnesses have given false statements due to grudge. He stated

that he was not the perpetrator of the occurrence, rather the

victim Fori herself poured kerosene on her person and set fire and

he tried to save her, due to which he received burns on his hands.

2 documents were exhibited in defence. Then, after hearing the

learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and

upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge

convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above

vide judgment dated 24.09.2021, which is under assail before this

court in the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant

has been falsely implicated in the case due to some grudge. It

was the victim, who set herself on fire after pouring kerosene and

the appellant tried to save her and in this process received burns

on his hands, which is evident from his injury report (Ex.P/8).

There is no eye-witness of the incident. Mangi Bai (P.W.3), who

2023:RJ-JD:24848 (4 of 7) [CRLAS-1107/2021]

first reached at the spot, stated that the appellant was trying to

put out fire. There are various contradictions in the statements of

the prosecution witnesses. On these grounds, learned counsel

prayed for acceptance of the appeal and acquittal of the appellant.

6. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued

that the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment

after apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and

as the prosecution has fully established the guilt of the appellant

by producing cogent and clinching evidence, no interference in the

impugned judgment is called for in this appeal.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by leaned

counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have gone

through the impugned judgment and the record of the case.

8. The victim Fori, who was examined as P.W.2, has narrated

the entire incident in detail, in which being agitated on a trivial

issue of wearing transparent stole, her husband poured kerosene

on her and set fire. Her sister-in-law Mangi Bai (P.W.3)

extinguished the fire and saved her and her brother-in-laws

Kalulal and Kheerchand took him to the hospital. She refuted the

claim of the defence that the appellant Udailal tried to save her.

The statement of Mangi Bai, corroborates the story narrated by

the victim and also establishes the presence of the accused at the

spot. Kalulal (P.W.1), who took the victim to the hospital stated

that the victim told him the same description of the incident.

2023:RJ-JD:24848 (5 of 7) [CRLAS-1107/2021]

Nothing significant was elicited from the cross-examination of

these witnesses. Kheerchand (P.W.4), who also accompanied the

victim to the hospital, supported the prosecution case. Shyamlal

(P.W.5) stated that the accused fled from the spot due to fear of

beating. One important piece of prosecution evidence is the

testimony of Dr. Sanjay Pareek (P.W.13), who on requisition of the

police, examined the victim and prepared injury report (Ex.P/5),

wherein he noted that the injuries were caused due to dry heat

flame burn. He further noted that smell of kerosene was

emanating from the body and the extent of burn was 37-40% and

one-third part of the body was burnt. In the opinion of the doctor,

the injuries suffered by the victim were dangerous to life. The

Investigating Officer Prem Singh (P.W.14) stated the steps of

investigation till filing of challan. The defence has not been able

to point out any noteworthy loophole in the investigation

procedure. The learned trial court did not believe the defence

theory that it was rather the complainant herself who set her to

fire after pouring kerosene and the accused tried to save her. The

learned trial court based on the evidence placed on record arrived

at a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt the occurrence of the incident, in which the

accused-appellant poured kerosene on the victim and set her on

fire, thus, causing injuries which were opined by the medical jurist

to be dangerous to life. Thus, the learned trial court concluded

that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is proved against

the appellant and accordingly, he was convicted for the said

offence.

2023:RJ-JD:24848 (6 of 7) [CRLAS-1107/2021]

9. Upon thoughtful consideration, this court is of the opinion

that though there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the

witnesses, but a careful scrutiny of the same does not give rise to

any suspicion over their truthfulness specially when the same is

further corroborated by other material available on record

including the injury report. In the considered opinion of this

court, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and

unimpeachable evidence. The learned trial court has prudently

discussed the entire evidence in detail and based upon thorough

appreciation of the same has reached to the conclusion of guilt of

the appellant. I find no error, irregularity or illegality in the

impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of

conviction is maintained.

10. As far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,

this court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has already

adopted a liberal approach while sentencing the appellant to

undergo simple imprisonment of 6 years, when the maximum

punishment provided for the offence committed by him is 10

years. Thus, the appellant does not deserve any further leniency.

11. It is revealing from the record that the appellant in custody

since the date of his arrest on 26.05.2017, thus, apparently he

has served the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Thus,

it is ordered that if the appellant is still in jail, the period of

sentence served by him shall be computed and if he has actually

2023:RJ-JD:24848 (7 of 7) [CRLAS-1107/2021]

completed the term of imprisonment and he is not wanted in any

other case, he shall be released forthwith from the prison.

12. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

13. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)