13 Jan 2024 6:01 AM GMT
In a man's appeal challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for killing his wife, the Supreme Court recently observed that setting a person on fire is an act of 'extreme cruelty' and would fall under Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for Murder).
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan ordered that the appellant, whose sentence was suspended by the court in 2012 considering that he had undergone about 12 years of incarceration, surrender before jail authorities within 4 weeks. On his failing to do so, "the jail authorities shall bring it to the notice of the Trial Court whereupon nonbailable warrants be issued against him", the court said.
Briefly put, the FIR against the appellant was first registered under Section 307 IPC, when his wife was admitted in a hospital with burn injuries and gave a statement against him. As she later succumbed to her injuries, Section 302 IPC was added.
In her dying declaration, the appellant's wife had stated that he was an alcoholic, who used to beat her when she would not give him money for buying liquor. On the day of the incident, he had come home in a drunken state and raised similar demand. When she refused and told him to go sleep, the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Later, he tried to pour water over her to douse the fire.
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The decision of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court. In 2012, the appellant moved the Supreme Court. The appeal was admitted, and taking note of the period of incarceration, he was released on bail.
The appellant's case before the Supreme Court was that he did not have any intention to kill his wife. Senior Advocate Sirajudeen appeared for the appellant and, relying on the dying declaration of the deceased (wife), submitted that after pouring kerosene on his wife, the appellant had tried to extinguish the fire by pouring a bucket of water over her. Thus, it was contended, the case fell under Part 1 of Section 304 IPC and not Section 302.
On the previous date of hearing, expressing dismay over non-appointment of any counsel in the matter to represent the State, the court had appointed Amicus Curiae Aditya Singh. During the course of arguments, Singh asserted that the appellant's guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and concurrent findings of fact returned by two courts, which need not be interfered with.
After hearing the submissions and perusing the material, the Bench observed that the plea sought to be raised before it on behalf of the appellant was neither raised as a defense during trial, nor at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 CrPC. Finding no infirmity in the impugned judgments, the appeal was dismissed.
Counsels for appellant: Senior Advocate Sirajudeen; AOR Revathy Raghavan; Advocates Divya Singhvi, Arya Kumari, and Satender Kr Vashistha
Counsels for respondent: Advocate Aditya Singh (Amicus Curiae) and Advocate Kamal Kishore
Case Title: Naresh v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.1189/2012
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 37