RAJU RADAKYA UMBARSADA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 2409 of 2001 by the learned First Ad-Hoc District and Sessions Judge at Palghar District Thane. The appellants were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said case and they came to be convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 and section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are presently undergoing sentence.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, the accused No. 1 is married to Laxmi who is the daughter of accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 had fallen for the daughter of the complainant Taibai who was unmarried. The accused and the complainant are residents of the same village i.e. Nagandar Dongari pada in Dahanu taluka of Thane district. On the fateful day i.e. 10th November, 2000 at about 8 p.m. Taibai daughter of complainant Sushilabai (PW 3) was sitting in her house and was washing utensils in front of the rear door of the house. She heard the shouts "Vachva Vachva" coming from her house and therefore, she rushed in and saw her daughter Taibai in flames. Tulshibai alleged that accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 had poured kerosene on Taibai and set her on fire and ran away. The accused did so because the accused No. 1 was wanting to marry Taibai and Taibai as well as her family members were against said proposal as accused No. 1 was already married having two children and had threatened that if Taibai did not marry him he would set scores. Tulshibai's husband Balu PW 4 and his son Dilip PW 5 were at the relevant time sitting in the house of Balu's brother Vansha and which is in front of the house of Tulshibai and after hearing her shouts he also appeared at the scene and tried to catch hold of the accused but, they fled. Tulshibai immediately rushed to the nearest police station Gholwad which is about 7 to 8 kms from the place of the incident and the police reached the place of the incident at about 9 p.m. on the same day by a police jeep. Taibai was immediately shifted to the Cottage Hospital at Dahanu between 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and the Medical Officer present on duty started medical treatment. PW 3 lodged the complaint with Gholwad police station and C.R.No. 56 of 2000 came to be registered in the wee hours of 11th November, 2000. The accused were taken into custody at about 2 p.m. and a spot panchanama was drawn at Exhibit 13. The plastic kerosene can was also seized from the house of the accused No. 2 and during the course of investigation statements of the witnesses were recorded. While under treatment Tarabai breathed her last on 14th November, 2000 and the charge was altered to section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in place of section 307 read with section 34 of the said Code.

(3.) On investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the case being triable exclusively by the Sessions Court came to be committed on... The charge was framed on 7th November, 2002. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both the accused took a plea that they were falsely implicated. As per accused No. 1 the deceased Tarabai was in love with him and she was torturing him to marry which he could not as he was already married with two children. Her father had scolded and slapped her after she had returned home wandering in the village. Whereas accused No. 2 stated that while she was sleeping in the house, police woke her up at 4 a.m. on 11th November, 2000 and arrested her. As per her statement, the police informed her that a false prosecution case would be lodged against her.