MESU DHONDIBA VIDHATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 24/7/1998 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 104/1985 reversing the acquittal order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, acquitting the appellant and convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indain penal Code, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court committed an error in relying upon the dying declarations oral as well as written made by the deceased Shashikala and in any set of circumstances, the High Court ought not to have interfered with a well-reasoned acquittal order passed by the trial court.

(3.) For appreciating the said contention, we would first refer to the prosecution version and the dying declarations made by the deceased. It is the prosecution story that deceased Shashikala, daughter of Dagadu A. Kamble (Public Witness -1) , was married to the appellant, 9 to 10 months prior to the date of incident. After the marriage she was residing at the house of the appellant situated at Indira Nagar Jhopadpatti, Pune. During Diwali days she came to the house of her father and after Diwali her father sent her back with some clothes for the appellant. The appellant came at the house of public Witness -1 and threw those clothes. Apprehending that Shashikala would be beaten,public Witness -1 brought her at his place at Khed. Thereafter, she was with him for a week and the appellant along with his father came and both of them apologised and promised that they will not ill-treat the deceased. Consequently, Shashikala was sent to her matrimonial house. Thereafter,public Witness -1 also came to stay in a hut situated about 100 ft. away from the appellant's hut. It is the prosecution version that on 28.3.1984 at about 8. 00 p. m. , Shashikala came to her father's house and told him that when she asked accused not to gamble, he inflicted fist blows on her stomach and threw away the cooked food. Consequently,public Witness -1 with Shashikala came to the house of the appellant and protested. At the house of the accused, whenpublic Witness -1 asked about this, he replied that he would continue with gambling and his only obligation was to provide food and clothing to Shashikala. Public Witness -1 returned to his hut and thereafter within few minutes he was informed by ah old woman, named Parvatibai that appellant had burnt Shashikala and their hut was burning. On hearing that public Witness -1 ran to Shahsikala's house along with his sister Hirabai (Public Witness - 2) and they saw the respondent standing near the hut at the entrance door, which was chained from outside. When he (Public Witness -1) peeped into the house, he saw Shashikala lying on the ground in burnt condition. When he called Shashikala by her name, she informed him that accused has inflicted fist blows on her stomach and thereafter poured kerosene oil on her person and set fire to her sari with kerosene lamp. Thereafter, he along with his sister Hirabai and Vitthal Ballal lifted Shashikala, took her in a rickshaw to Sasoon Hospital, where she was admitted in ward no. 27.