‘Setting a person on fire is an act of extreme cruelty’: SC rejects husband’s bail

The Supreme Court recently said that setting a person on fire is an act of extreme cruelty as it rejected a man’s plea seeking commutation of his punishment from murder to the less stringent offense of culpable homicide.

He claimed that he had no intention of killing his wife as he had tried to save her by pouring water to extinguish the fire that broke out after pouring kerosene oil.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Naresh against the decision of the Delhi High Court which had confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Delhi, in which he was booked under section 302 of the IPC. Was convicted and sentenced for an offense under. He will have to face life imprisonment.

“In our considered opinion, setting a person on fire is an act of extreme cruelty and would fall under section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgments and orders passed by the Sessions Court or the High Court,” the bench said.

His lawyer said that he had no intention of killing his wife. He further submitted that the Appellant, after pouring kerosene oil on his wife, tried to extinguish the fire by pouring a bucket of water on her and, therefore, the case of the Appellant would fall under Part I of Section 304 and not Section 302 IPC. He also relied on the dying declaration of the deceased.

On the contrary, the amicus curiae argued that the guilt of the appellant-accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts.

After hearing the parties and perusing the material placed on record, the bench rejected the argument advanced by the appellant.

“We do not find any substance in the contention of the Appellant that the Appellant’s case would fall under Section 304 Part-1 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC, for the simple reason that the Appellant has not made any such plea in his defence. Didn’t give.” No such contention was raised by him during the trial nor at the time of recording of his statement under section 313 of CrPC,” the bench said.

The court directed the appellant to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within four weeks.

The Appellant was granted bail on 2 April 2012 and his sentence was suspended as by then he had already served almost 12 years of imprisonment.