BABAN ANNA DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL accused No.1 whose conviction of the offence punishable under section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default further R.I. for 3 months on the first count and R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default further R.I for one month on the second count substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.2 of 1987 has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1987 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, has preferred this revision application.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under: The present revision petitioner -original accused No.1 was prosecuted and tried for the offences punishable under sections 306 and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with his father -original accused No.2 and mother -original accused No.3 on an allegation that on 8 -6 - 1986 at about 8.00 a.m. Bharati, the wife of the present revision petitioner -accused No.1, ignited herself after pouring kerosene on her person and that the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention had abetted Bharati by ill -treating her mentally and physically and Bharati died due to burn injuries caused to her in the said incident ultimately on 13 -6 -1986 and thereby the three accused had committed the offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage of deceased. Bharati took place about 4 -5 years prior to 13 -6 -1986 and she started residing with the accused No. 1,2 and 3 at Ledegaofa. It appears that Bharati could not pull on well in the family of the accused No.1 and admittedly there were occasions when Bharati did not behave properly in the house of her parents -in -law. On 19 -5 -1986 marriage of Chandrabhaga, who is the sister of deceased Bharati, was celebrated at Village Nhavi where the parents of deceased Bharati and Chandrabhaga none residing. The accused No.1 being the son -in law was invited to the said wedding and accordingly he had gone to village Nhavi to attend the said wedding. However, according to the prosecution, it appears that at the time of the said wedding the father -in -law gave two cloth pieces to accused No.1 for stitching manila -shirt and pant being the son -in -law. The prosecution claims that the accused No.1 did not like the said cloth pieces and, therefore, had shown some disapproval of the said cloth pieces to deceased Bharati and the same was conveyed by Bharati to her father. It is also further claimed by the prosecution that due to the said incident the accused No.1 was annoyed and, therefore, he in stead of staying overnight after the marriage at the place of his parents -in -law had left for his village Ladegaon by about 6.30 p.m. It is also the prosecution case that the accused No.1 also did not take his meals which was, arranged at the celebration of the wedding. Thereafter deceased Bharati continued to stay at the house of her parents for few days and then returned to the house of her husband at Ladegaon. It is the prosecution case that due to the said incident at the time of the marriage, the accused No. 1 and his parents started ill -treating Bharati and due to the said ill -treatment, on 8 -6 -1986 she ignited herself after pouring kerosene on herself. According to the prosecution case, admittedly on 8 -6 -1986 the accused Nos. 1 and 3 were not at the house inasmuch as the accused No.3 had gone to Pune since about 10 days before the said incident and the accused No.1 had gone out of the Village on that day itself -and only accused No.2, the father -in -law was in the house. At the time of the incident, the accused No.2 was outside the house in the backyard and one Rau was with him. Hearing the shouts raised by Bharati both the father -in -law as well as Rau went running inside the house and noticed that deceased Bharati was in flames and she was shouting to extinguish the flames. The accused No.2 admittedly extinguished the flames with the help of bed -sheets. Due to the said commotion, neighbours including Bhagubai - D.W.2 carne to the house and she also noticed that deceased Bharati was in flames and the flames were extinguished and that she had suffered burn injuries. Police Patil Ramchandra Yadav - P.W.3 came to know about the said incident and he also went to the spot of incident and thereafter he sent his occurrence report (Exhibit 16) to the Karad Police Station. Head constable Manik Khopade after receiving the occurrence report from Police Patil immediately went to Ladegaon and saw that deceased Bharati, was in critical condition and she was burnt. However, deceased Bharati was in a position to talk and he, therefore, questioned her and recorded her statement (Exhibit 28) with the help and assistance of Police Constable Ingale. It is the prosecution case that deceased Bharati at that time told Head Constable Manik Khopade that for the last two days she was constantly beaten and harassed by her husband, mother -in -law and father -in -law and, therefore, she had poured kerosene on herself and thereafter had ignited herself. Thereafter deceased Bharati was carried through a truck by which the said Constable had come, to Karad. On reaching Karad, she was taken to the hospital. Thereafter on the same day at about 5.30 p.m. the police called for the Taluka Executive Magistrate and got a statement recorded of deceased Bharati which is at Exhibit 42. In the said statement recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, deceased Bharati has stated that she got burnt accidentally as her nylon saree fell on the flames and nobody was responsible for the said incident. It appears that on 8 -6 -1986 an offence under section 309 was registered against deceased Bharati. It also appears that on 13 -6 -1986 an A.D. was registered bearing No. 3/86 in respect of the said incident. Later on, on 146 -1986 PSI Devrashi went to the spot of incident and he effected a panchanama (Exhibit 14) of the spot of incident. However, it appears that Head Constable Khopade had already drawn the spot panchanama on 8 -6 -1986 which is at Exhibit 32. On the same day, i.e. 14 -6 -1986. He also seized the clothes which was given to the accused No.1 by his parents -in -law for stitching shirt and pant. It also appears that he seized a stove from the house of the accused No.1 and it was found that the said stove was not in working order. Panchanama Exhibit 20 in this respect was drawn. PSI Devrashi thereafter recorded statements of several witnesses including Rau and Bhagubai. Thereafter he arrested the accused Nos. l, 2 and 3.

(3.) NORMALLY sitting in revision, this Court does not entertaining the criminal revision application of facts and re -appreciate the evidence. But in the present case, it has been rightly urged before me on behalf of the revision petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court, had not considered the defence evidence led by the accused at all and, therefore, it is clearly a case of non -application of mind by the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal. It is also clear from the judgment of the Trial Court that there are several statements made in the judgment of the Trial Court which clearly indicate that there had been also misreading of the evidence by the Trial Court also. Under these circumstances, though normally this Court does not enter into question of facts and re -appreciate the entire evidence led by the prosecution and the defence, it has become necessary to re -appreciate the entire evidence that was placed before the Trial Court, Sic. Paragraph 5