DILIP DHAKU RANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). The victim was married to appellant No.1 Dilip in the year 1990. It was alleged that there was some ill-treatment to the victim on account of her inability to complete the domestic chores. The victim gave birth to a son and a daughter who are now looked after by the appellants. The victim and appellant No.1 had left the house of appellant No.1s parents in Shravan of 1994 and were staying at another village. About a month before the incident which took place on 3-2-1995, the victim and her husband had returned to the house of the parents. According to the victim, the ill-treatment resumed after she came back to the house of her in-laws. On 3-2-1995, at about 9:00 a.m., the victim consumed rice which had been cooked on the previous night. This infuriated her father-in-law, appellant No.3, who slapped the victim and also hit her with the handle of a broom. Appellant No.1 Dilip, the victims husband and appellant No.4 Sarita, the sister-in-law, also quarreled with the victim and asked her either to go to her parental home or to start residing separately. At that time appellant No.2 Laxmibai also allegedly abused the victim and asked her to go away. Tired of all this harassment, the victim poured kerosene over a quilt, lied down on the quilt and set the quilt on fire. She sustained 22% of burn injuries, mostly on both legs, anterior part of the abdomen and right and left elbow. She was taken to the Rural Hospital at Kankavali where her statement was recorded by a police officer in the presence of a doctor. Thereafter, she was shifted to the Government Medical College & Hospital at Panaji, Goa, where she succumbed to her injuries on 13-4-1995, that is over two months after the incident. On a report by the victims brother, an offence was registered and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kankavali, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Sawantwadi.

(2.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge charged the appellants with the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charge, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering the evidence tendered in the light of the defence of denial of complicity in the ill-treatment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held appellant Nos.1, 3 and 4, that is the husband, father-in-law and the sister-in-law guilty of the offences punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for one month and fined them Rs.100/-, or in default further RI for seven days. He held all the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for three years and five years with fine of Rs.200/- or in default to suffer RI for a further period of two weeks on the two counts respectively. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court.

(3.) THE events of 3-2-1995 which culminated in the victims setting herself on fire, as recounted by the victim in her dying declaration, are material. She stated that at about 9:00 a.m. she had consumed rice which was left over on the previous night and therefore her father-in-law Dhaku was infuriated. He abused her, slapped her and hit her with the handle of a broom. Though she claimed that her hand was injured on account of this thrashing, the medico legal certificate at Exhibit-27 does not show any injury on the hand. The victim stated that at that time her husband and sister-in-law also quarreled with her and asked her either to go to her parental home or start residing separately. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is nothing to show that the appellants Dilip or Sarita had participated in beating of the victim. It is doubtful whether Section 34 of the IPC could have been invoked for making Dilip or Sarita vicariously liable for the thrashing which the victims father-in-law gave her. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants Dilip and Sarita for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC is thoroughly unsustainable.