SANJAY GAJANAN GHORPADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is original accused 1 in Sessions Case No.433 of 2004. He was charged with one other for offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") so also under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27/11/2006, accused 2 was acquitted. The appellant was, however, convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case can be summarized as under :

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant, at some length. He submitted that the prosecution has examined all interested witnesses. No independent witness has been examined to establish that the deceased was treated with cruelty and that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He submitted that it is risky to rely on the interested testimony of PW-1 Nathuram and PW-2 Gopinath and convict the appellant. Counsel submitted that PW-7 ASI Patil has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 5/7/2004, which is at Ex-57. In that dying declaration, the deceased had stated that there was a short circuit and, therefore, she received the burn injuries. The other dying declarations are the result of tutoring by the relatives of the deceased. Counsel submitted that in view of the variance between the dying declarations, the prosecution story has become suspect. Counsel submitted that in the circumstances, the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the appellant be directed to be released forthwith. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that no interference is necessary with the impugned order.