news details |
|
|
| Fine reduced to Rs.10, 000 from 5 lakh | | DB upholds life imprisonment of husband for killing wife | |
JAMMU, AUGUST-06- Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Jammu wing comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir in an appeal filed against judgment dated July 11, 2002 whereby the Court below awarded life-imprisonment and Rs five lakh fine, upheld the life imprisonment but reduced the fine to Rs 10,000 only.
According to the prosecution case deceased Surjit Kour, wife of accused Kikar Singh, taken to hospital on October 26, 1998 in a critical condition having 100% burn injuries. In a statement recorded on October 27, 1998 she stated that she had contracted marriage with Kikar Singh and out of said wedlock they had two children- son and a daughter. She in her statement further said that on October 26, 1998 at about 8 PM, her husband Kikar Singh came to home while he was drunk and started quarreling with her, he also tried to break down the television and asked her to leave the home. Thereafter, the accused picked up a gallon of kerosene oil and poured on her and set her on fire. She cried but no one came to her rescue till neighbourers assembled she had received 100 % burn injuries and they brought her to hospital. She further stated that her husband always used to come in drunken state and beat/abuse her and thereafter she died in the hospital.
The Trial Court after hearing the parties convicted the accused u/s 302 RPC and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs five lakhs. The accused filed an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court.
In the approved for reporting judgment written by Justice Mansoor Ahmed for the Division Bench after hearing Adv BS Manhas (amicus-curiae) appearing for the appellant and AAG Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the state and referred various judgments of the Supreme Court and observed that it is worthwhile to mention here that the accused had made a statement u/s 342 CrPC, that the deceased was preparing meal on stove and the stove burst and she got burn injuries, Court conscious that statement u/s 342 CrPC, cannot be made the basis for conviction, but its effect is to be taken note of virtually the accused admitted his presence in the house and has taken the defense that she had sustained burn injuries due to the bursting of the stove. The medical report and post-mortem report do not support the version; he has made a U-turn while filling appeal. In memo of appeal he has averted that he was working as conductor of a matador and was earning a meager income. On the day of occurrence at about 8:00 PM he was still with the matador, he got the information that his wife had caught fire due to bursting of stove and he immediately reached to the hospital. Thus the statement made by him u/s 342 CrPC and stand taken in the appeal are contradictory.
DB further observed that “we are the of the considered view that prosecution
has brought guilt home to the accused and trial Court has rightly convicted
the accused, the sentence of imprisonment for life is also legal one; but fine
imposed is too excessive. Instead of imposing Rs five lakh as fine, it is in the
interest of justice to impose a fine of Rs 10,000 only. With these
observations DB upheld the orders of conviction and sentence of
imprisonment for life, but modified he order imposing fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
