KISAN MAHADEO MODAK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried for the murder of his wife under Section302 of I. P. C. THE prosecution, in all, had examined 10 witnesses. THE Trial Court by judgment dated12.11.1997, which is the subject matter of this Appeal, held the appellant guilty under Section302 of I. P. C. and sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment as also fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, R. I. for one month. THE appellant was in detention in connection with this case from 4.11.1996, which was ordered to be set off under Section428 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant and the deceased were married for about22 years. On 3.11.1996 at about2. 00 p. m. , the appellant was demanding money for liquor from his deceased wife, who was reluctant to give money, upon which , the appellant beat his wife and poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire, as a result of which, she suffered 93% burns. THE incident was witnessed by Sushila, PW6, who stays just opposite to the house of the appellant. THE deceased made oral dying declaration in the presence of PW-3 Shrikrishna; PW2 Bhagwan Khade; PW-6 Sushila. She is also said to have made oral dying declaration to her brother, PW-4 Prabhakar. In addition, her written dying declaration was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate, PW-1 Mukhtar Ahmed. Before and after recording the dying declaration, he obtained necessary certificates from Dr. Madanlal Sharma, PW-5. THE report of the Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the residues of kerosene were detected on partly burnt saree. THE Trial Court has accepted the entire evidence of the prosecution and has rejected the theory put forward by the appellant that deceased died on account of catching fire while she was preparing tea, as also that the appellant had made efforts to extinguish fire.

(3.) THE prosecution had examined eye witness, PW-6 Sushila, who has stated that her house is in front of the house of appellant; in between her house and the house of the appellant, there is only one road and their houses face each other. According to her, she had returned at about2. 00 p. m. on3.11.1996 and she found that there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. THE appellant was demanding money from the deceased under the influence of liquor which was the cause of the quarrel. She has further stated that the appellant was beating the deceased by fists and kicks. According to her, the quarrel was going on outside the house in a Osari (shed) of the appellant. On this, the deceased said kill her. THE appellant then, removed the kerosene from the stove, poured on the person of the deceased and set her on fire with the help of a match stick. She caught fire and flames went up to the height of roof. THE deceased started running and came beneath Gondhan tree. She was shouting. On hearing her shouts, Shrikrishna, PW-3, rushed to the spot. He came with a water container and poured water on the deceased. In that fire, all her clothes were burnt. He gave saree to Shrikrishna, who called his wife and covered the deceased with saree. Sushila, PW-6, also went near her and at that time, she told all the persons, who gathered there that the appellant had poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. This witness was cross-examined at length, but could not be shaken on material particulars, except for two contradictions/omissions. She has stated in her deposition that the appellant had removed the kerosene from the stove in big bowl (Ghamela) and then poured kerosene on the person of deceased. However, she admitted when questioned about this statement before the Police that same is not mentioned in her police statement, and she could not give any reason for the omission. She also admitted that she was also questioned regarding the deceased having told to all the persons that the appellant had poured kerosene on the person of deceased and set her on fire. She further admitted that this fact is also not mentioned in her statement. However, except for these ommissions in her statement, no dent could be made in her deposition relating to having seen the incident in question. THE fact that the deceased had seen the incident has been duly proved from the evidence of Sushila.