LAWS(BOM)-2000-4-15

ANIL TULSHIRAM WALARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 27, 2000
ANIL TULSHIRAM WALARE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 28th November, 1995, passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Nashik, in Sessions Case No 140 of 1993, wherein the appellant was convicted for commission of offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal code for murder of his wife and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE facts involved in the present case, in brief are thus the appellant was married to deceased Indubai and they were living together at village Lakhalgaon in District Nashik. The appellant's brother Eknath was also residing m the neighbourhood with Ins family members In the evening, at about 6 00 or 6 30 p m on 22nd March, 1995, deceased Indubai was at home along with the appellant, at which time, appellant's niece came to the deceased Indubai and told her that she was called by Eknath and his wife Chandrabhagabai. Therefore, the appellant and Indubai went to the place of Eknath Earlier there was some quarrel amongst children due to which there was some exchange of hot words between Eknath and his wife on the one hand and Indubai on the other The appellant suddenly got angry and kicked deceased Indubai due to which she fell on the ground. Then the appellant picked up a buck lying nearby and hit Indubai with it as a result of which she was injured near her right ear Indubai then rushed to her house as she was afraid that the appellant might assault her again However, the appellant followed her and at about 7 00 or 7 30 p m the appellant poured kerosene on the person of Indubai and set her on fire with a match stick Indubai raised an alarm due to which the neighbours aished to rescue her Eknath and Chandrabhagabai also came to the spot and earned Indubai to the Civil Hospital at Nashik, in injured condition. The police at the Civil Hospital informed Nashik Road Police Station about admission of Indubai in burnt condition Necessary station diary entry was made and Special Executive Magistrate was informed to record the dying declaration of indubai In the meantime, Police Sub-Inspector Rajdeo went to the hospital and recorded Indubai's statement at 12 25 a. m. on which basis offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant at about 7 30 p m at Nashik Road Police Station, on 23rd March 1995. In the meantime, Special Executive Magistrate Baviskar had gone to the hospital and recorded dying declaration of Indubai vide Exhibit 28, at about 12 30pm on the same day In her F. I. R. as well as dying declaration Indubai squarely attributed authorship of the crime to the appellant stating that he had poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire. Indubai succumbed to the bum Injuries on 24th March, 1995 The body was sent for autopsy which was performed by Dr Wadgaonkar, who stated that Indubai had suffered 64% bum injuries and cause of death was shock due to said burn injuries The postmortem notes were duly issued vide Ex 18. In the meantime, the investigation commenced, wherein statements of various witnesses were recorded Witnesses Manjulabai, mother of deceased Indubai, witness shankar, brother of deceased Indubai and witness Ramabai, the neighbour have categorically stated that they were informed by deceased Indubai that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene upon her and set her on fire the spot panchanama was prepared by the Investigating Officer, at which time, certain incriminating articles were seized, which were duly sent to the Chemical analyser for examination whose reports are received and are part of the evidence on completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law against the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual manner.

(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The defence of the appellant was that of total denial of any criminal liability with which he has been charged.