Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Learned counsel would submit that the recovery of MOs.1 to 3 under Ex.P2 is also doubtful and the prosecution has not examined the maker of the FSL Report - Ex.P.5. Hence, the Sessions Judge committed an error in accepting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of the Doctor-PW.4 is also inconsistent with his report-Ex.P.3. The injuries sustained by PW.1 could be superficial and self inflicted, which could not be ruled out. Such being the situation, learned Sessions Judge committed a grave error in accepting the testimony of PW.4. The injury sustained by PW.1 are simple in nature and she has spent more than 12 hours in the house of the first appellant and in order to attract the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, there has to be an intervening cause due to which the victim could be alive. If at all PW.1 felt that she would be killed by the appellants, she would not have stayed in the house of the accused in the entire night and would have tried to get the immediate help. No such circumstances had occurred. Hence, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted the accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 307 and Section 114 read with Section 307 of IPC respectively.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Trial Judge has failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence and has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 is also not consistent and there are contradictions in the evidence. Learned counsel also would submit that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the injuries found on PW.1 are blisters of burns, which is first degree injuries. No doubt, the FSL report shows the presence of the kerosene in the Petticoat and no MLC before the Court. The mahazar drawn also not speaks anything with regard to it. The place of the incident is also contrary, but she claims that she called her sister over mobile as she was having the mobile with her. Learned counsel would submit that the seized articles were sent to Magistrate and there was a delay of 5 days in sending the same.

36. No doubt, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim as assessed by the appellants' counsel are the injuries in the nature of blisters of burns. P.W.1 has given the explanation that when they have poured kerosene, immediately she removed her saree and when the fire was lit, she was wearing petticoat. It is also important to note that through P.W.7, the FSL Report got marked and the said FSL report clearly depicts that the petticoat also contains the kerosene in terms of Ex.P5. In the cross-examination of P.W.7 with regard to the FSL report is concerned, nothing is disputed and elicited. P.W.7 also admits that they have not received any memo from the hospital. The mahazar also discloses for having seized MOs.1 to 3, which is marked as Ex.P2 in the presence of P.W.2. Nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 regarding seizure of MOs.1 to 3.

43. It is also important to note that P.W.1, in her evidence categorically deposed against accused No.3 that she went and brought the kerosene Can and handed over the same to accused No.2, who is her husband and uttered the words to pour the kerosene and would see who will come to rescue her. This utterance discloses the clear intention of mens rea to take away the life of the victim-P.W.1. Hence, the very contention of the appellants that the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 114 read with Section 307 of IPC do not attract, cannot be accepted. The Sessions Judge, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution, though found certain discrepancies, they are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Sessions Judge also discussed in detail taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the medical evidence of P.W.4 and so also taken note of injuries found on Ex.P3 and so also FSL Report - Ex.P.5, which has not been controverted by the defence counsel during the course of cross-examination. No doubt, the expert of FSL has not been examined and the Report of FSL is marked through P.W.7 and the same is not disputed. I have already pointed out that during the course of cross- examination of P.W.7, nothing is disputed in respect of the FSL Report.