SHAM MADHAVRAO RUPVATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14-11-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 109/95 convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. has come up in appeal before us:

(2.) IN short prosecution case runs as under: The deceased Muktabai was the wife of appellant. She was married to him about 9 months prior to incident. Appellant under the influence of liquor used to beat and harass her. On 25-4-1995 at about 1 or 1. 30 a. m. Pushpa Tadpade PW-6 a neighbour of Muktabai and appellant, heard cries of Muktabai on which she rushed to her house, followed by Mandabai Potinde PW-7 who was also Muktabais neighbour. Pushpa Tadpade and Mandabai saw Muktabai, in a burnt condition. On seeing them Appellant ran away. Since Muktabais sari was burnt Pushpa and Mandabai changed the same. On their asking Muktabai as to how she was burnt Muktabai replied that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Shortly thereafter another neighbour Kantabai came. Kantabais husband Madhav and one Shivaji brought Suresh Yadav PW-12 along with his rickshaw. On the rickshaw of Suresh Jadhav Muktabai was removed to Civil Hospital, Nasik, where she was admitted.

(3.) THE evidence of Dr. Ravindra Ashtaputre PW-9 shows that on 25-4-1995 at 2. 10 a. m. he admitted Muktabai as a burns case in Civil Hospital, Nasik and informed police. Thereafter immediately police came to hospital and told him that it wanted to record statement of Muktabai. Dr. Ravindra Ashtaputre examined Muktabai and isued a certificate that she was in a position to give her statement. Thereafter police havaldar Sudam Mahajan PW-3 of Bhadrakali Police Station recorded her statement, Exhibit 16, in the presence of Dr. Ravindra Ashtapure. A perusal of Exhibit 16, in short, shows that Muktabai stated that on 24-4-1995 at about 9 p. m. she cooked meals. Thereafter appellant took her to a jeweller for purchasing mangalsutra. After purchasing it they returned to house. She started making preparations to serve dinner. Appellant stated he would go out and consume liquor. Some time later he came in a drunken condition. She asked him whether she should serve him dinner. He asked her to take dinner for he wanted to take more liquor. When she started taking her dinner he questioned her how could she take before he had taken and poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire.