ANAND @ BHAUSAHEB YUVRAJ PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are original accused Nos. 1 and 2. (For the sake of convenience they shall be hereinafter referred to as "accused Nos. 1 and 2".) They are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, who, by his judgment and Order dated 28/05/2004, convicted them for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 316 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. Fine of Rs 1000/- was imposed upon them on each count and, in default, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months was imposed. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs 500/- each and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs 500/- and, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) During pendency of the appeal original accused No.2 was released on bail. Accused No.1 is in jail since the date of his arrest. He was released on bail only for a period of two weeks.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 has taken us through the judgment and order of the Trial Court and also the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. At the outset, he fairly conceded that so far as the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is sufficient material on record which indicates that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the said offence. He submitted that the question which was required to be decided by this Court was : whether the death of Jyotsna was accidental or homicidal He submitted that there was no sufficient material on record to implicate the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it was not clear whether the said incident had happened on account of an accident or was a case of suicide. It was, therefore, submitted that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to get benefit of doubt. He further submitted that four dying declarations were recorded by the police. In the first two dying declarations, the deceased had stated that the incident had taken place on account of an accident, whereas, in the last two dying declarations, she had stated that her husband had set her on fire. It was submitted that, under these circumstances, no reliance could be placed on the dying declarations. He submitted that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, he was on night duty on 17/02/2001 and he was to be relieved on 18/02/2001 at 8.30 a.m. It was submitted that the entry was made in the muster which indicated the since telephone call was received at the Police Station that accident had taken place in his house, he was relieved from the duty. It was, therefore, submitted that the presence of accused No.1 was not established by the prosecution and none of the witnesses has stated or talked about his presence. THE learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Kamla vs State of Punjab, 1993 CrLJ 68 and submitted that where there were multiple dying declarations and there were inconsistencies in all the dying declarations, it was not proper to pick out one statement in which the accused was implicated and convict the accused on that basis.