SANTOSH DATTATRAYA TAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is convicted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer RI for 10 days, in Sessions Case No.21/2006 by the Sessions Judge-1 Gangakhed, vide judgment and order dated 07.10.2008, has questioned the legality of the said judgment by preferring the present criminal appeal.

(2.) SUCH of the facts, as are necessary to decide the appeal, may briefly be stated thus - a) Deceased Rupali got married with one Ravindra Prakash Udanshiv (Accused No.4) on 05.12.2005 at Nanded. After their marriage, the spouses were residing separately from other family members, at Parali Naka, Gangakhed. On 15.04.2006, at the request of Rupali, Ramesh-her father (PW-1) and Rajeshree-her mother (PW-3) visited the matrimonial house of Rupali, as she had complained about ill-treatment to her by her husband as well about illicit relations of her husband with one Banu (Accused No.9). On 16.04.2006, when the parents of Rupali were to leave for Jintur, the appellant-brother in law of her husband and Ravindra- her husband, requested them to have a lunch and thereafter to proceed to Jintur. As Rupali had suspected some foul play, she signaled her parents not to have the lunch. Thereafter, at the request of Rupali, her brother-Shubham (PW-12) was called to stay with Rupali. Thereafter, her parents proceeded to Jintur, without taking lunch and Shubham stayed with Rupali. b) On 17.04.2006, Rupali sustained burn injuries in her matrimonial house. It is alleged that due to the incident dated 16.04.2006 of her parents refusing to have lunch, the appellant, who is brother in law of her husband, had took out a quarrel with her and in a fit of anger poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Her husband tried to extinguish the fire, however she sustained burn injuries. She was brought to Rural Hospital, Gangakhed from where, as per medical advice, she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Parbhani at about 12.20 p.m. Thereafter, MLC No.1552/2006 was registered after her admission at Civil Hospital, Parbhani. c) PW-9 Bapu Lad, PSO Nanalpeth police station, took entry of the MLC in the Station Diary at 12.40 p.m. Thereafter AD was recorded and investigation was taken over by ASI Bashir. Requisition letter was sent to Tahsildar to make arrangement to record statement of Rupali. Mr.Sopan Deorao Babad, Naib Tahsildar (PW-5), recorded dying declaration (Exhibit-95) of Rupali. d) On the basis of the dying declaration (Exhibit-95), an offence at Crime No.52/2006 was registered, initially for an offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation of the crime was carried out by PSI Dilip Dharmaraji Kamble (PW13). During the investigation, he visited the spot of the incident and prepared Spot Panchanama (Exhibit-99) and seized certain articles. On 19.04.2006 and 20.04.2006, he recorded statements of certain witnesses. On 21.04.2006, Rupali succumbed to the burn injuries. Accordingly, Gangakhed police station was informed and hence the crime registered for an offence punishable u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, was converted into an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Inquest Panchanama was drawn on the body of Rupali and the body was sent for Postmortem. On 22.04.2006, the appellant came to be arrested. At the time of his arrest, clothes on his person were seized under seizure Panchanama (Exhibit-126). During the investigation seized articles were sent to CA. After receipt of the report of CA and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet against the appellant was filed before JMFC, Gangakhed on 20.07.2006. e) After the charge sheet was filed against the appellant, it appears that the father of the deceased submitted a representation on 30.08.2006 in Gangakhed police station requesting to conduct further investigation. Thereafter, statements of the relatives of deceased Rupali, including her father, mother and brother, were recorded. Thereafter, section 498-A Indian Penal Code came to be added in Crime No.52/2006 and original accused No.2 to 9 were arrayed as accused in the said offence and came to be arrested on 31.12.2006. Thereafter supplementary charge sheet was filed against the newly added accused. f) After passing of the necessary committal order, trial against the appellant and other accused was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 08.06.2007, charge was framed against the appellant and others by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Defense of the appellant and others was of total denial and that they are falsely implicated in the said offence. g) During the trial, to substantiate the charge leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined total 14 witnesses, including the alleged eye witness i.e. Shubham (PW-12), brother of deceased Rupali, Ramesh (PW-1) father of deceased, Rajshree (PW-3) mother of deceased, husband of the maternal aunt of deceased, who was the mediator to settle the marriage of Rupali and Ravindra (PW-2), Sopan Deorao Babad (PW-5) Naib Tahsildar, who had recorded the dying declaration of Rupali (Exhibit-95), Dr.Sanjay Khillare (PW-8), who had initially examined deceased at Parbhani and had also certified on 17.04.2006 that Rupali was in a fit condition to give statement, Dr.Pratap Ghodke (PW7), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rupali and prepared Postmortem notes (Exhibit-101), Bapu Lad (PW-9) who had registered the AD on the basis of MLC (Exhibit-108) and Dilip Kamble (PW-13) the investigating Officer. h) Considering the evidence on record, the trial court discarded the evidence of eye witness Shubham (PW-12) so also the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 on the point of cruelty and illegal demand by the accused and acquitted accused No.3 to 9 of all the charges for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (accused No.2 Prakash expired during the pendency of the trial). However convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN the light of the rival submissions it is clear that it is not disputed that Rupali expired due to burn injuries sustained by her. In this view of the matter, we do not think it necessary to reappreciate the evidence of Dr.Pratap Ghodke who has conducted the autopsy on the dead body and had prepared the Post-mortem notes (Exhibit-101).