STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SATYABHAMA PANDURANG RAIPURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dhote, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant-State.

(2.) THE Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and Order of acquittal, dated 9-2-1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 1988, whereby the present respondent is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dhote, the learned APP for the appellant, contended that in the instant case the prosecution has examined in all fourteen witnesses in order to prove the offences charged against the respondent. It is contended that out of these witnesses, evidence of Samadhan (PW. 5), father of deceased Shashikala, Digambar (PW. 8), Bhagwat (PW. 9) and Kasturabai (PW. 10) is relevant to unfold the material particulars of the prosecution case in respect of the offence of murder as well as dowry death and cruelty committed on the deceased by the respondent-accused. Mr. Dhote states that the evidence of these witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Vinodkumar Ukarde (PW. 1), who has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found 73 per cent burn injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that the probable cause of death is Septicaemia due to 73 per cent of burns. It is contended that the deceased Shashikala was the daughter of Samadhan (PW. 5) and was ill-treated by the respondent-accused immediately after her marriage. Deceased Shashikala was married to Digambar, who is the son of respondent-accused about five months prior to the incident. It is contended that the case of the prosecution is that on 20-8-1988, the mother-in-law of deceased Shashikala, i. e. , the present respondent, asked her to prepare tea and, therefore, Shashikala ignited a stove and kept a pot on the said stove. In the meanwhile, respondent Satyabhama came from behind her, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. The deceased Shashikala succumbed to the burn injuries. It is contended that in order to prove these facts, the evidence of the above referred prosecution witnesses is material. It is contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimonies of the above referred prosecution witnesses and came to a wrong conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the case of murder against the respondent-accused.

(3.) SIMILARLY, the evidence of the above referred prosecution witnesses on a close scrutiny would reveal that this is a case of dowry death, since the death of Shashikala is caused by burns in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and the evidence would further reveal that before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondent, who is the mother of her husband Digambar in connection with the demand of dowry. It is, therefore, contended that the prosecution in the instant case also proved the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.