EKNATH BHAGWAN HATKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (PER )

(2.) THIS appeal is filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 16-10-2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 199 of 2007, whereby the appellant / accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- i/d to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has proved two written dying declarations and one oral dying declaration by examining the prosecution witnesses. Evidence of Inspector who recorded dying declaration and also evidence of Executive Magistrate and Medical Officer, PW 5 is consistent. Both the dying declarations have been proved by the prosecution through prosecution witnesses PW 2 to PW 6 and panch witnesses. It is submitted submitted that accused-appellant has not offered any explanation under what circumstances Anita sustained burn injuries. He further submitted that it is not requirement of law that certain questions should be put to the victim by Medical Officer before dying declaration is recorded. Medical Officer had given endorsement on both the dying declaration about fitness and consciousness and state of mind of victim Anita and thereafter both the dying declarations came to be recorded. LEARNED A.P.P. In support of his contention placed reliance on the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shersingh and another Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 1437 and more particularly para 13 and 14 of the said judgment. The sum and substance of the argument of learned A.P.P. is that the dying declarations are consistent. The spot of incident is not disputed by the appellant-accused. The spot of incident in the present case is the house of the appellant-accused. The incident took place during the night time. The appellant has not offered any explanation and therefore, the prosecution case has been rightly accepted by the trial court. It is further submitted that there was no provocation to the incident and the accused appellant has cold bloodedly poured kerosene on the person of deceased Anita and set her on fire when she was asleep. LEARNED A.P.P. also invited our attention to the cross examination of the Medical Officer and submitted that the Medical Officer has specifically stated in his cross examination that though 98% burns injuries were sustained by Anita, still she was in a position to talk. LEARNED A.P.P. invited our attention to the entire evidence brought on record and submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused. Therefore, he prayed for rejection of the appeal.