SURESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1987-1-42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
January 27,1987
SURESH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAJ NARAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1995-2-85] [REFERRED]JAGDISH PRASAD VS. STATE DELHI ADMN [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
BACHUBHAI VALJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1999-10-3] [RELIED ON]
MALIK RAM BHOI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1992-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
LAYAKRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2002-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHESHRAO CHINDHUGIR GIRI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1991-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
LILABAI RAMCHANDRA KOKATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AFZAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AFZAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
ASHABAI BHASKAR PAGARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG ALIAS AJAB DEOMAN GAWAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1997-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1995-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-8-53] [REFERRED TO]
PADMABEN SHAMALBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1991-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
GOPALI DEVI VS. STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2000-11-122] [RELIED]
ANWAR NOORMOHMAD SAICHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1992-6-17] [REFERRED]
KAMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2010-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
HANS RAJ VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-8-99] [REFERRED TO]
DESH RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
BACHUBHAI VALJIBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1999-10-92] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEV ANS ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1990-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP SINGH AND ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK SON OF BHANWAR LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AFZAL SON OF SAMSHODDIN MUS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-272] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-196] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SANJAY KUMAR & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-196] [REFERRED TO]
AJJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR LAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-117] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Dutt, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming the order of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, convicting the appellant under S. 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the murder of his mistress Lachhibai.
(2.)The prosecution case, in brief, was that Lachhibai was the mistress of the appellant and they had been living together for a period of 15/16 years. There used to be frequent quarrels between them. It is not disputed that the appellant's married wife was living separately from him. In the night of June 8, 1983 there had been a quarrel between the appellant and Lachhibai. On the next day, that is, on June 9, 1983 at 10.45 a.m., the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter set fire to her with the help of a lighted matchstick, in consequence of which the whole body of Lachhibai got burnt externally. She was removed to the hospital at the instance of Station House Officer, Manohar Lal Bhandari (P.W. 10).
(3.)Dr. Smt. Asha Bhargava (P.W. 1) examined Lachhibai and found that the whole of her body had sustained hundred per cent burns of second degree. She was conscious but her condition was serious. At the request of P.W. 10, Dr. Bhargava recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P-5). In her dying declaration it was stated by Lachhibai that after a quarrel the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her. At about 12.45 p.m. she succumbed to her injuries on the same day. The post-mortem examination was also conducted by Dr. Bhargava and she found that Lachhibai died on account of hundred per cent burns of second degree. In her opinion, these burns were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death. After the conclusion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted on a charge under S. 302, IPC for murdering Lachhibai.
(2.)The prosecution case, in brief, was that Lachhibai was the mistress of the appellant and they had been living together for a period of 15/16 years. There used to be frequent quarrels between them. It is not disputed that the appellant's married wife was living separately from him. In the night of June 8, 1983 there had been a quarrel between the appellant and Lachhibai. On the next day, that is, on June 9, 1983 at 10.45 a.m., the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter set fire to her with the help of a lighted matchstick, in consequence of which the whole body of Lachhibai got burnt externally. She was removed to the hospital at the instance of Station House Officer, Manohar Lal Bhandari (P.W. 10).
(3.)Dr. Smt. Asha Bhargava (P.W. 1) examined Lachhibai and found that the whole of her body had sustained hundred per cent burns of second degree. She was conscious but her condition was serious. At the request of P.W. 10, Dr. Bhargava recorded her dying declaration (Ex. P-5). In her dying declaration it was stated by Lachhibai that after a quarrel the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and burnt her. At about 12.45 p.m. she succumbed to her injuries on the same day. The post-mortem examination was also conducted by Dr. Bhargava and she found that Lachhibai died on account of hundred per cent burns of second degree. In her opinion, these burns were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death. After the conclusion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted on a charge under S. 302, IPC for murdering Lachhibai.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.