Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Meena Bai vs The State Of M.P on 16 July, 2013
[1]
Criminal Appeal No. 869/1997
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 869/1997
Smt. Meena Bai
Vs.
State of M.P.
As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Ms. June Choudhary, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Jai Lakshmi Iyer,
Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.N. Yadav, PL for the State.
JUDGMENT
[16.7.2013]
1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2)of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore vide order dated 5.4.1997 passed in S.T. No. 19/96 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 6 months.
2) The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is undisputedly wife of complainant Om Prakash. They were living together in a rented house. It is alleged that on 21.11.1995, complainant told her wife/appellant that he would vacate the rented house and shift to the house situated near Sugar factory square, on which the appellant abused him and refused to go with him, thereafter, the complainant slept on the floor, then appellant splashed hot oil on the complainant and fled away from the spot. The complainant sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, neighbour Mahesh Rathore (PW-3) came on the spot, the complainant was rushed to the hospital. Dr. A.A. Qureshi (PW-1) treated and examined the complainant and informed to SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Sehore vide letter (Ex.P-2). SHO recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-12), thereafter FIR (Ex.P-13) was lodged against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.
[2] Criminal Appeal No. 869/19973) The appellant was arrested. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before CJM, Sehore, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant.
4) The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. It was also pleaded that the complainant was in drunken condition and he himself fell down on hot oil.
5) On appreciation of evidence on record, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal.
6) Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. At the time of incident, the complainant was in drunken condition and this fact has been corroborated by MLC report. He assaulted the appellant/his wife during quarrel. If the appellant has caused any injury to the complainant, same was caused in order to save herself, there was no intention of the appellant to kill the complainant, therefore, no case under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant. At the most, the case of the appellant would fall under Section 324 of the IPC, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court be set aside and appellant be acquitted.
7) Learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant has alternatively submitted that the appellant is a lady and the incident had taken place about 18 years ago, therefore, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.
8) Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
9) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court and other material on record. It is not in dispute that the incident had [3] Criminal Appeal No. 869/1997 taken place in the house of appellant and complainant. It has come in the evidence of Dr. A. A. Qureshi (PW-1) that injured Om Prakash had consumed liquor at the time of incident. He has further stated that the complainant sustained 72% burn injuries, which was caused by hot liquid substance.
10) Complainant Om Prakash admitted that there was a dispute between him and his wife/appellant in regard to shifting of the house. He has further admitted that he returned to the house at about 9:00 PM. He has also admitted that the appellant had delivered a female child just before one month of the incident. It is apparent from the statement of complainant that he returned to the house at about 9:00 PM, the incident is stated to have taken place at about 10:00 PM, it seems quite improbable that the complainant was sleeping and appellant poured burning oil on him. On the contrary, it seems probable that there was some quarrel between complainant and appellant, the complainant assaulted the appellant and the appellant in order to save herself poured hot oil on him. The complainant himself has stated in his statement that he is unable to state why the appellant poured hot oil on him.
11) Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the appellant had no intention to kill the complainant, however, she must have been in a mood to give a lesson to the complainant, who was in drunken condition, therefore, she splashed hot oil on him in the fit of anger, due to which complainant sustained burn injuries. The appellant has voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant but there was no intention of the appellant to kill the complainant, therefore, in my opinion, the case of the appellant would fall under Section 324 of the IPC. The learned trial Court has committed the illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, same is liable to be quashed.
12) So far as sentence is concerned, the appellant is a lady and wife of the complainant. The incident had taken place in the [4] Criminal Appeal No. 869/1997 year 1995, about 17-18 years have elapsed by now, in my opinion, no useful purpose is going to be served by again sending the appellant to the jail. Thus, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone i.e. 5 months and fine (as awarded by the trial Court).
13) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the Court below under Section 307 of the IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. The sentence of the appellant recorded by the Court below is reduced. The appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone i.e. about 5 months and fine (as awarded by the trial Court).
The appellant is on bail, her bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB