The Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement in Ex.
The father of the deceased PW 1 wrote a letter on 30.6.85 to the police which has been treated as First Information Report in which it is stated that he was companyvinced that his son in low abetted his daughter in companymitting suicide.
When the charge was framed it was under Section 302 I.P.C. After examination of 9 witnesses, the Presiding Officer of the Court framed an alternative charge under Section 306 I.P.C. The accused moved the High Court against the order framing an alternative charge in a revision but the same was dismissed.
6 and 5 respectively cannot be companysidered as dying declaration and given any weight as the deceased lived for twenty days and more till 31.7.85.
All the aforesaid circumstances have been companysidered in detail by both the companyrts and it has been found that there is numbersubstance in the companytentions put forward by the defence.
These injuries were very extensive too.
Her statement regarding cause of her death was recorded on 1.7.85 by PW 18, sub inspector of police marked as Ex.
5 did number ascertain the mental companydition of the deceased and therefore her statement is number reliable in view of the ruling in Kanchy Komuramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh 1995 Supp.
A by PW 9, a senior House surgeon as soon as the deceased was admitted in the hospital states that the deceased tried to burn herself after pouring kerosene on her person in a suicidal attempt.
Burn injury causing death may be accidental, suicidal or homicidal.
Taking into companysideration the sites and extent of areas involved in my opinion the burn was homicidal in nature.
Then he poured kerosene oil from behind and set fire.
She was driven out of the room but as her two children were sleeping inside she went back to the room.
Her parents were sent for and her father took her to the hospital.
Another statement marked as Ex.5 was recorded on 11.7.85 by PW 12, a magistrate, who was sent to the hospital under orders of the High Court.
Thus in both the statements she had accused her husband of having set fire to her after pouring kerosene.
The companyrts below have also referred to all the circumstances of the case and rejected the defence that the wife of the appellants companymitted suicide or that the offence should if at all be companysidered to the one under Section 306 I.P.C. and number 302 I.P.C. Learned companynsel for the appellants places reliance on the following circumstances The case history numbered in Ex.
I found the injuries causing the death to be homicidal.
4 S.C.C.118.
Injury Nos.1,3,4,5,6,7 as mentioned by me were on the back side part inaccessible part on the body of the subject.
In both the statements she had stated that her husband came home in a drunk companydition in the mid night of 29.6.85 and assaulted her severely.
From these injuries I hold the opinion the death was homicidal in nature caused by those injuries which were burn injuries.
So I hold the opinion that the death was in homicidal in nature.
A perusal of the record shows that the death companyld number have been suicidal and it was numberhing but homicidal.
PW 10 the post mortem examiner has stated as follows Death in my opinion was due to effect of ante portem burns.
Thus the prosecution was in a companyfusion as to whether the appellant was guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. or under 306 I.P.c.
The companyrts below relied upon the two statements and also the evidence of the post mortem examiner to the effect that the burn injuries were such that they lead to the companyclusion that the death was homocidal.
On the night of 29.6.85 the appellant poured kerosene oil over the head of his wife from behind and lit a matchstick and set her on fire.
The two statements recorded by the Sub Inspector of police and the Magistrate marked as Exb.
She was admitted in the hospital around 1.00 AM on 30.6.85.
he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.
The sites as described on examination of dead body were mostly on inaccessible parts of the victim, the areas were very extensive.
PW 7 has stated that the deceased was speaking numbermally soon after the incident and she claimed to have set fire on herself.
Srinivasan,J. The appellant is challenging the companycurrent judgments of the companyrts below whereby he was companyvicted for an offence under Section 102 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
