GAFFAR BADSHAHA PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the death was homicidal or accidental is the question that falls for determination in this appeal. The Court of Sessions has held it to be homicidal, convicted the appellant and imposed on him life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant by dismissal of the Criminal Appeal that was filed by the appellant. The correctness of the judgment of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal. The case rests on circumstantial evidence.

(2.) The appellant (accused) was 22 years old at the time of the occurrence. The deceased was 32 years of age. She was married and had 5 children. Her husband, P.W. 14, was working at Abu Dhabi. As a result of burn injuries received by the deceased on 18th November, 1980 at about 4 -30 p.m. she was admitted in a hospital and died on 19th November, 1980. The accused and the deceased were near relatives, their mothers being real sisters. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused used to render help in construction of a bungalow on the plot owned by the husband of the deceased who used to send money for the purpose of construction from Abu Dhabi. The motive for the crime, as per the prosecution case, is illicit relations between the accused and the deceased and also extraction of money by accused from the deceased. The burning had taken place in the kitchen of the house of the deceased. In the hospital D.W. 1 - a Head Constable on police duty in the hospital recorded the statement of the deceased at about 9.00 p.m., according to which accidentaly the deceased received burn injuries while she was preparing tea on a stove in her kitchen and when she was removing the vessel with the edge of her sari which suddenly caught fire. She was wearing a nylon sari. But, according to the prosecution, the dying declaration was recorded by the Head Constable to help the accused. It was not a genuine document. The husband of the deceased made a complaint dated 15th May, 1981 complaining that the investigation had not been properly conducted. On the basis of the said complaint the matter was inquired into and ultimately on 8th January, 1984 a case for offence under Section 302 was registered against the appellant. The appellant was arrested on 9th January, 1984. The appellant has been found guilty of offence under Section 302 and that finding has been confirmed in appeal as earlier noticed.

(3.) The prosecution relied upon the following circumstances :