1

AFR

Reserved on : 07.03.2019

Delivered on : 05.09.2019

Court No. - 34

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 1144 of 2017

Appellant :- Lal Mohar

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail,Jay Ram Pandey,Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- Rishi Chadha (A.G.A.)

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.)

1. Against judgment and order dated 04.02.2017 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-2, Ballia in Sessions Trial No.242

of 2013, Crime No.125 of 2003, under Sections 326 and 304 IPC,

Police Station Garwar, District Ballia, accused-appellant has

preferred present jail appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. from Jail

through Superintendent District Jail, Ballia. By impugned

judgement, appellant has been convicted under Section 304 I.P.C.

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.

10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months

imprisonment but acquitted under Section 326 I.P.C.

2.Factual matrix of case as emerging from First Information

Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) as well as material placed

on record is as follows.

3.P.W.-1 Sri Ram submitted a written report Ex.Ka-1 in Police

Station Garwar, District Ballia stating that on 10.8.2003 at about

8:30 PM, his daughter-in-law Smt. Vimla Devi with her daughter

Gudia aged about one and half year was returning home from his

2

Dera (a structure being built in the agricultural field to stay for short

duration). As usual when she reached the place between Dera and

home, accused Lal Mohar came with petrol and sprinkled petrol on

both of them and set them on fire. Due to burn, his daughter-in-law

started crying, then to rescue them, he (PW-1) and many persons of

the village rushed there and took them to District Hospital, Ballia for

medical treatment. Gudia succumbed to injuries whose post mortem

was conducted on 11.8.2003 in Ballia. Later on Vimla Devi

succumbed to death due to burn injuries.

4.On the basis of written report Ex.Ka-1, Chick F.I.R. Ex.Ka-3

was registered by PW-4, Satya Narain Mandal, as Case Crime

No.125 of 2003 against accused-appellant under Section 304, 326

I.P.C. An entry of case was made in General Diary (herein after

referred to as 'GD') on the same day, copy whereof is Ex.Ka-6.

5.Km. Gudia and Smt. Vimla Devi were medically examined by

Dr. Jitendra Kumar Singh on 10.8.2003 in District Hospital, Ballia.

6.Immediately, after registration of case, investigation was

undertaken by S.I. Jagdish Yadav. He proceeded to spot and held

inquest over the dead body of Vimla Devi and sent it for post

mortem, visited spot, prepared site plan Ex. Ka-7.

7.PW-8, Dr. P.K. Rai, conducted autopsy over the dead body of

Km. Priya (Gudiya) aged about one and half year and found ante-

mortem superficial to deep burn injuries. In the opinion of doctor,

death might have been caused at about 7:10 AM on 11.8.2003 and

death was possible due to shock on account of ante-mortem burn

injuries.

8.PW-6 Dr. R.N. Upadhyay, conducted autopsy over the dead

body of deceased Vimla Devi and found ante-mortem burn injuries

3

over the dead body except upper portion of abdomen, right shoulder,

head and upper portion of thigh. Doctor opined that death would

have been caused due to infection and ante-mortem burn injuries.

9.PW-7 S.I. Atma Ram, after completing investigation submitted

charge sheet Ex.Ka-13 against the appellant under Section 304 and

326 I.P.C.

10.Case, being triable by Court of Sessions, was committed by

Chief Judicial Magistrate to Court of Sessions for trial after

compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

11.Trial Court framed charges against accused-appellant on

16.9.2013 under Sections 326 and 304 IPC. Charges read as under:

vkjksi

eSa lh0 ,e0 frokjh ¼,p0ts0,l0½ l= U;k;k/kh'k] cfy;k

vki vfHk;qDrx.k%&

1& yky eksgj iq= Jhjke Hkj

lkfdu ds'k:vk Fkkuk lq[kiqjk ftyk cfy;kA

ds fo:) fuEufyf[kr vkjksi fojfpr djrk gWw %&

1& ;g fd fnukad 10-08-2003 dks le; djhc 8-30 cts

lkfdu dqYgkMk ekStk jrlM+ [kqnZ Fkkuk xM+okj ftyk cfy;k es

vkius oknh Jhjke dh cgw foeyk nsoh vkSj foeyk nsoh dh iq=h

xqfM;k mez Ms< o"kZ ds 'kjhj ij isVªksy fNM+ddj lykbZ ls vkx

yxk fn;k] ftls foeyk nsoh vkSj xqfM;k ty x;hA bl izdkj

vkius [krjukd vk;q/kksa }kjk LosPN;k migfr dkfjr fd;k tks

/kkjk& 326 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl

U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA

2& ;g fd mijksDr fnuakd] le; vkSj LFkku ij vkius

oknh Jhjke dh cgw foeyk nsoh dh iq+=h xqfM;k mez Ms< o"kZ ds

4

'kjhj ij isVªksy fNM+ddj lykbZ ls vkx yxk fn;k] ftlls os

nksuks ty x;h vkSj tyus ds dkj.k Ms< o"khZ; xqfM;k dh e`R;q gks

x;hA bl izdkj vkius gR;k dh dksfV esa u vkus okyk vkijkf/kd

ekuo o/k dkfjr fd;k tks /kkjk& 304 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds

vUrxZr n.Muh; gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku esa gSA

rnSo vkidks dks fufnZ"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vkidk fopkj.k

mDr vkjksiksa esa U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk,xkA

C H A R G E

I, C.M. Tiwari (HJS), Sessions Judge, Ballia, do

hereby charge you the accused (1) Lal Mohar S/o Shriram

Bhar R/o Keshrua, PS Sukhpura, District Ballia with the

following offence:

1.That on 10.08.2003 at around 8:30 o'clock at

Kulhara, Village Ratsarh Khurd, PS Gadwar, District

Budaun, you sprinkled petrol on the bodies of the

complainant Shriram's daughter-in-law Vimla Devi and her

1½-year-old daughter Gudia and set them afire with a

matchstick, as a result of which Vimla Devi and Gudia got

burnt. In this way, you have voluntarily caused grievous hurt

by dangerous weapons which is punishable u/s 326 IPC and

is within the cognizance of this court.

2.That on the aforesaid date, time and place, you

sprinkled petrol on the bodies of the complainant Shriram's

daughter-in-law Vimla Devi and her 1½-year-old daughter

Gudia and set them afire with a matchstick, as a result of

which Vimla Devi and Gudia got burnt, and 1½-year-old

Gudia died due to burns. In this way, you have committed

culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is

punishable u/s 304 IPC and is within the cognizance of this

court.

It is hereby directed that you, the accused, be tried by

this court for the aforesaid offences.

(English Translation By Court)

5

12.Accused-appellant denied charges, pleaded not guilty and

claimed trial.

13. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many

as nine witnesses, out of whom PW-1 Sri Ram, PW-2-Manish and

PW-9 Muneeb Rajbhar are witnesses of fact; PW-3 Radhey Shyam

(Panch witness of inquest), PW-4 Head Constable, Satya Narain

Mandal, PW-5 Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh proved signature of Dr.

Jitendra Kumar Singh, PW-6 Dr. R.N. Upadhyay, conducted autopsy

of Vimla Devi, PW-7 S.I. Atma Ram Yadav and PW-8 Dr. P.K. Rai

conducted post mortem on the dead body of Km. Gudia, are formal

witnesses.

14.On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused-

appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Court

explaining entire evidence and other incriminating circumstances. In

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant denied

prosecution story in toto and desired to produce defence evidence. In

response of question no. 6, accused-appellant said that he was

innocent and has not committed any crime but did not adduce any

evidence.

15.Trial Court after appreciating entire evidence led by

prosecution on record and hearing counsel for parties, found

appellant guilty and convicted him as stated above. Feeling

aggrieved with impugned judgement of conviction, present appeal

has been filed through Jail.

16.We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for

appellant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A for State-respondent

at length and have gone through the record available on file

carefully.

6

17.Learned counsel for appellant assailing impugned judgement

of conviction of accused-appellant, advanced his submissions, in the

following manner :-

(i)There is no independent witness. PWs-1, 2 and 9

are related to deceased persons, therefore, their

evidence is not sufficient to base the conviction.

(ii)Witnesses of prosecution did not see accused

committing crime.

(iii)There is no motive to accused-appellant to

commit the present crime.

(iv)Medical evidence does not support prosecution

case.

(v)There are major contradictions in evidence of

witnesses rendering prosecution case doubtful.

(vi)F.I.R. was lodged by complainant with

inordinate delay but no explanation.

(vii) Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt and Trial Court did not appreciate

evidence properly and only convicted accused-

appellant.

(viii)Punishment awarded by Trial Court is harsh and

excessive and he must be dealt with sympathetic

consideration.

18.Learned AGA for State opposed submissions and stated that

accused is named in F.I.R.; relation of witnesses with victim or

accused is not a ground to discard the evidence of relatives; PWs.1, 2

and 9 are witnesses of fact, supported prosecution case and it is a

7

case of direct evidence, prosecution has established his case beyond

reasonable doubt and Trial Court has rightly convicted accused-

appellant.

19.Although time, date, place and nature of injuries as well as

death of victims could not be disputed from the side of accused-

appellant but according to Advocate for accused-appellant, he is not

responsible for causing death of Vimla Devi and Gudiya by causing

burn injuries. Even otherwise, from the evidence of prosecution,

death of Vimla Devi stands established due to burn injuries.

20.Thus the only questions for consideration of this Court is,

“whether accused-appellant has caused death of Vimla Devi and her

daughter Gudia and Trial Court has rightly convicted accused-

appellant for causing death of Vimla Devi and her daughter Gudia

punishable under Section 304 I.P.C.?”

21.Now, we may proceed to consider rival submissions of learned

counsel for the parties and briefly, evidence of prosecution and some

important decisions.

22.PW-1, Sri Ram has deposed that on 10.8.2003 at about 8:30

PM, he was in his Dera; his daughter-in-law Vimla Devi with her

daughter Gudia aged about one and half year was returning to home

after providing meal to him; when she reached near sugar cane field

of one Jai Narayan Singh, accused-appellant Lal Mohar came there

with petrol in a plastic can and sprinkled petrol on his daughter-in-

law Vimla Devi and grand daughter Gudia and set them at fire; his

younger son Manish, PW-2, was with Vimla Devi at that time; on

hearing shrieks of Manish and his daughter-in-law, he (PW-1) and

other persons of same village rushed to rescue them whereupon

accused-appellant ran away but was identified in the light of Torch;

8

both injured persons were taken to District Hospital, Ballia for

medical treatment in a serious position where Gudia succumbed to

burn injuries on the next day during treatment in hospital and Vimla

Devi succumbed to injuries in District Hospital, Ballia during

treatment after 18-19 days of incident.

23.PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that at the time of

incident, he was in his Dera, reached the place of incident on hearing

noise of villagers; his Dera is at the distance of 10-20 Lattha from

the place of occurrence; and that his daughter-in-law was being

taken to hospital from spot by the people of village Tola and he was

near his house. From this statement made in cross-examination, PW-

1 does not appear to be an eye witness although, he told that he has

seen accused running away from spot and proved presence of PW-2

Manish with Vimla Devi on spot.

24.PW-2 Manish deposed that on 10.8.2003 at about 8:30 PM, he

was returning to his house from Dera with his Bhabhi Smt. Vimla

Devi; when he reached near sugar cane field of Jai Narayan Singh,

accused came out of Sarpat (Long grass) with petrol in a plastic can

and poured petrol on victim and Gudia and set them at fire; on

making noise his father and other villagers reached there; Vimla

Devi and her daughter were taken to District Hospital, Ballia for

treatment where Gudia succumbed to death in next morning and

Vimla Devi died in District Hospital, Ballia after 17 days.

25.PW-9 Muneeb Rajbhar deposed that on 10.8.2003 at about

8:30 PM, his Bhabhi Vimla Devi along with her daughter Gudia

aged about one and half year were going to home from Dera; when

she reached near sugar cane field of one Jai Narayan Singh, accused-

appellant sprinkled petrol on them and set them at fire; he was little

behind the victim; on hearing alarm raised by Vimla Devi and his

9

brother Manish (PW-2), he and his father arrived at spot whereupon

accused-appellant ran away from spot but he was identified by him

in the light of Torch; he chased him but accused succeeded in

making good escape; Vimla Devi and Gudia were taken to District

Hospital, Ballia where Gudia succumbed to death on the next day

but Vimla died after 17 days in hospital.

26.Both witnesses withstood sufficient cross-examination from

the side of accused but no material could be brought so as to

disbelieve their statement.

27.PW-3 Radhey Shyam, is witness of inquest, who proved

inquest report of Gudia as Ex.Ka-2; PW-4, H.C. Satya Narayan

Mandal proved registration of F.I.R. on the basis of written report

Ex.Ka-1; PW-5 Dr. Anoop Kumar Singh proved signature of Dr.

Jitendra Kumar Singh conducting medical examination of Vimla

Devi and Gudia, proved medico legal reports' PW-6 Dr. R.N.

Upadhyay, conducted autopsy over the dead body of Vimla Devi and

proved post mortem report as Ex.Ka-10; and PW-8 Dr. P.K. Rai

conducted post mortem report of Km. Gudia and proved post

mortem report Ex.Ka-14.

28.Presence of PW-2 and PW-9 appeared quite natural on the spot

and there was no reason to them to falsely implicate accused-

appellant in the present case. In the statement under Section 313

Cr.P.C. accused did not suggest anything as to why witnesses

deposed against him.

29.PW-1 and PW-2 established that they noticed accused running

from spot. Statement of PWs.-1, 2 and 9 established that accused-

appellant sprinkled petrol on Vimla Devi and her daughter Gudia

and set them at fire causing serious burn injuries due to which they

10

succumbed to death in hospital in respective times.

30.Now, next thing to be considered is that PWs.-1, 2 and 9 are

relatives of deceased have their evidence whether be treated to be

trustworthy or not. This submission is thoroughly misconceived.

Mere relationship is not sufficient to discard otherwise trustworthy

ocular testimony and it is now well settled law laid down in Dalip

Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR,1953, SC 364 wherein Court has

held :-

“A witness is normally to be considered independent unless

he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted

and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as

enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.

Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the

real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is

true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for

enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent

person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the

guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and

the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is

often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not

attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be

judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to

combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a

general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule.

Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own

facts.”

31.In Dharnidhar v. State of UP (2010) 7 SCC 759, Court has

observed as follows :-

“There is no hard and fast rule that family members can

never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they

will always depose falsely before the Court. It will

always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a

given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of

Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199, this Court had occasion

to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses

can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a

pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with

the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence

cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes

11

from a person closely related to the victim”

32.In Ganga Bhawani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others,

2013(15) SCC 298, Court has held as under :-

“11. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence

of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully

scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is

made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused

in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be

disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses

are related to each other or to the deceased. In case

the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,

credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly

should, be relied upon.

(Vide: Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. v. State of UP, AIR

2011 SC 2292; and Dhari & Ors. v. State of U. P.,

AIR 2013 SC 308).”

33.It is settled that merely because witnesses are closed relatives

of victim, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Relationship with

one of the parties is not a factor that affects credibility of witness,

more so, a relative would not conceal the actual culprit and make

allegation against an innocent person. However, in such a case Court

has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out

whether it is cogent and credible evidence.

34.So far as argument made by learned counsel for appellant

regarding motive is concerned, we are not impressed with the

submission advanced by learned counsel for appellant as it is well

settled that where direct evidence is worthy, it can be believed, then

motive does not carry much weight. It is also notable that mind set of

accused persons differs from each other. Thus merely because that

there was no strong motive to commit the present offence,

prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.

35.In Lokesh Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 3 SCC

196, Court held as under :-

12

“As regards motive, it is well established that if the

prosecution case is fully established by reliable ocular

evidence coupled with medical evidence, the issue of

motive looses practically all relevance. In this case, we

find the ocular evidence led in support of the

prosecution case wholly reliable and see no reason to

discard it.”

36.According to Advocate for appellant, medical evidence is not

compatible with ocular evidence. We are not in agreement with the

same for the reasons that PW-2 and PW-9 supporting prosecution

case was deposed that accused-appellant came with petrol in Plastic

Can and poured on the victims and set them at fire due to which

Vimla Devi and Gudia received serious burn injuries. Doctor opined

that death of both victims would have been caused due to ante-

mortem burn injuries. In this way medical evidence is totally

compatible with oral version.

37.In so far as discrepancies, variations and contradictions in

prosecution case are concerned, we have analysed entire evidence in

consonance with submissions raised by learned counsel's and find

that the same do not go to the root of case and accused-appellant are

not entitled to get benefit of the same.

38.In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012)

4 SCC 124, Court has held that minor contradictions are bound to

appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes

plays false and sense of observation differs from person to person.

39.We lest not forget that no prosecution case is foolproof and the

same is bound to suffer from some lacuna or the other. It is only

when such lacunae are on material aspects going to the root of the

matter, it may have bearing on the outcome of the case, else such

shortcomings are to be ignored. Reference may be made to a recent

13

decision of the Apex Court (3 Judges) in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of

2018, Smt. Shamim v. State of (NCT of Delhi), decided on

19.09.2018.

40.Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that PW-1

lodged F.I.R. of the incident against accused-appellant after four

days of incident and he has not given proper explanation. Delay in

lodging F.I.R. demolishes the prosecution story, hence, accused-

appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. So far as delay in F.I.R.

is concerned, we are not in agreement with the argument advanced

by learned counsel for the accused-appellant for the reasons that

delay has been explained by informant in written report Ex.Ka-1. It

is well settled, if delay in lodging FIR has been explained from the

evidence on record, no adverse inference can be drawn against

prosecution merely on the ground that the FIR was lodged with

delay. There is no hard and fast rule that any length of delay in

lodging FIR would automatically render the prosecution case

doubtful.

41.In "Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab", (2001)

7SCC 690, Court has held;

"The attack on prosecution cases on the ground of

delay in lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a

stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a

recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that

there would be some delay in furnishing the first

information to the police. It has to be remembered that

law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a

delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course a prompt and

immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would

give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it

affords commencement of the investigation without any

time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for

any possible concoction of a false version. Barring

these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR the

demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to

14

any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even

a promptly FIR is not an unreserved guarantee for the

genuineness of the version incorporated therein. When

there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was

delayed the court has to look at the reason why there

was such a delay. There can be a variety of genuine

causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people

might be ignorant of the need for informing the police

of a crime without any lapse of time. This kind of

unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban

people also. They might not immediately think of going

to the police station. Another possibility is due to lack

of adequate transport facilities for the informers to

reach the police station. The third, which is a quite

common bearing, is that the kith and kin of the

deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a

certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of

temper for moving to the police station for the purpose

of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another

cause is the persons who are supposed to give such

information themselves could be so physically impaired

that the police had to reach them on getting some

nebulous information about the incident."

42.In Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC

518, Court held :

"In our opinion, the period which elapsed in lodging the

FIR of the incident has been fully explained from the

evidence on record and no adverse inference can be

drawn against the prosecution merely on the ground that

the FIR was lodged at 9.20 p.m. on the next day. There is

no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR

would automatically render the prosecution case

doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and

circumstances of each case whether there has been any

such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt

about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a

host of circumstances like the condition of the first

informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of

victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them,

the distance of the hospital and the police station etc.

have to be taken into consideration. There is no

mathematical formula by which an inference may be

drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging

of the FIR."

15

43.In this connection it will also be useful to take note of the

following observation made in Tara Singh V. State of Punjab AIR

(1991) SC 63:-

"The delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a

ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the

Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these

villagers to rush to the police station immediately after

the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin

who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected

to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving

the report to the police. At times being grief stricken

because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to

them that they should give a report. After all it is but

natural in these circumstances for them to take some

time to go to the police station for giving the report. Of

course, in cases arising out of acute factions there is a

tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite

faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of

convicting such innocent persons the courts should be

cautious to scrutinize the evidence of such interested

witnesses with greater care and caution and separate

grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a

closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR

also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However,

unless there are indications of fabrication, the court

cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the

FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on

the ground of delay. These are all matters for

appreciation and much depends on the facts and

circumstance of each case."

44.In Sahebrao & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 9 SCC

794, Court has held:

"The settled principle of law of this Court is that delay

in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the

prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging

the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if

any plausible explanation has been offered and if

offered whether it is satisfactory."

45.From the above exposition of law, it is manifest that

prosecution version cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay

in lodging FIR. Court has to examine the explanation furnished by

16

prosecution for explaining delay. There may be various

circumstances particularly number of victims, atmosphere prevailing

at the scene of incidence, the complainant may be scared and fearing

the action against him in pursuance of the incident that has taken

place. If prosecution explains the delay, Court should not reject

prosecution story solely on this ground. Therefore, the entire

incident, as narrated by witnesses, has to be construed and examined

to decide whether there was an unreasonable and unexplained delay

which goes to the root of the case of prosecution. Even if there is

some unexplained delay, court has to take into consideration whether

it can be termed as abnormal. Recently in Palani V State of

Tamilnadu, Criminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2009, decided on

27.11.2018, it has been observed by Supreme Court that in some

cases delay in registration of FIR is inevitable. Even a long delay can

be condoned if witness has no motive for falsely implicating the

accused.

46.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,

statement of witnesses, evidence of prosecution into entirety and

legal proposition discussed herein before, we have no hesitation to

say that accused-appellant caused death of Vimla Devi and Gudiaya

by causing burn injuries and committed offence punishable under

Section 304 I.P.C. Trial Court has rightly convicted accused-

appellant, therefore, conviction of accused appellant under Section

304 I.P.C. is maintained and confirmed. Criminal appeal lacks merit

and liable to be dismissed on merit.

47.So far as sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is

always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations.

The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be

exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and

17

mitigating in the individual cases.

48.It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be

awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances

of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was

executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind

itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person

aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be

marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to

gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society

and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further,

it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as

to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and

sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Court will be

failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a

crime which has been committed not only against individual victim

but also against society to which criminal and victim belong.

Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it

should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality

which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting

public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for

justice against the criminal'. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan

Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran,

(1990) 4 SCC 731, M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Ravji v.

State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175].

49.Hence, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid

judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and

circumstances of case, motive, nature of offence and the manner in

which it was executed or committed. We partly allow this appeal.

We confirm appellant's conviction under Section 304 I.P.C. and

18

modify order of sentence to under go rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 14 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In default of payment

of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year

imprisonment. He shall be entitled to set off under Section 428

Cr.P.C.

50. Lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent

back immediately to District Court concerned for compliance and

further necessary action and to apprise the accused-appellant through

Jail Authority.

Order Date :-05.09.2019

Manoj