Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan of the Sikkim High Court dismissed an appeal thus upholding the order passed by the Sessions Judge.
The facts of the case held that an FIR was lodged against the appellant by PW 1 that her sister PW 12 had been burnt and bitten by the appellant. Following this, a case was registered under the same appellant under the provisions of Section 307 of the Penal Code from which the Sessions Judge framed it under Section 307 of IPC and the plea of “not guilty” was heard to.
The Sessions Judge during the time of the proceeding duly examined the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC. Following this, the appellant was held guilty by the Sessions Judge. The aggrieved appellant filed for a review of the Sikkim HC.
The victim stated that the appellant and she were in a relationship. They fell unto some quarrel when the appellant damaged the furniture due to which the victim called for the police. Enraged by this, the appellant poured kerosene oil over the victim and lit her with a matchstick. The eyewitnesses doused the fire and took the victim to a hospital. The defence counsel vehemently denied this and stated that the victim had been pressurizing the appellant to marry her and in a fit of anger had poured kerosene oil and lit herself. The medical report made by the PW 13 corroborated with the fact that the victim was burnt and had been reeking the smell of kerosene. The only issue raised by the side of the appellant was the failure of the prosecution to produce sufficient eyewitness.
The HC after listening to both the sides held that it would not be right to doubt the disposition of the victim for her testimony had its own significance. The court thus held that the prosecution had sufficiently established that the appellant had done the deed with the intention of murdering the victim. The appeal was thus rejected and both the conviction and decree of the Session Judge were upheld.
Deepen Pradhan v. State of Sikkim, Crl. Appeal No. 18 of 2018