SURESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has questioned the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 457/2006. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The appellant had allegedly committed murder of his brother's wife by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene on her. There was a dispute between the deceased and the appellant on account of ancestral property. It is alleged that the appellant frequently used to quarrel with his father, brother and deceased-Sunita, who was the wife of his brother, namely, Shankar. The incident in question had occurred on 1st September, 2006 at about 10.30 or 11.00 am. The appellant and his brother-Shankar had their residential accommodations in the same premises. Both of them had a separate accommodation. It appears from the prosecution case that there was a common bath-room for both the families. The deceased was proceeding towards bath-room for bath. It was around 10.30 a.m. The appellant had allegedly quarreled with the deceased and had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire. Deceased-Sunita was immediately rushed to Mayo Hospital and was admitted for treatment. She succumbed to the injuries on 5th September, 2006 at about 9.30 a.m. There was no eye witness to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on two dying declarations of the deceased - one recorded by the Investigating Officer and the other recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) The FIR was recorded at about 20.45 hours on the basis of statement of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer. The FIR was for the offence punishable u/s. 307 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, spot panchnama was drawn, sketch of the spot was also drawn. The articles found in the kitchen of deceased were seized and seized articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser. Since the deceased died on 5th September, 2006, Section 302 of the IPC was applied and further investigation was carried out. During the course of further investigation dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Medical Officer after examination of dead body, had opined that the deceased had died due to "scepticemia due to burn injuries". After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. The case came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge after committal of the case. Charge u/s. 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant vide Exh. 5. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried. The plea of the appellant is at Exh. 6.

(3.) During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined in all 13 witnesses in support of its case. However, the judgment is mainly based on the dying declarations of the deceased recorded by PW9-Devanand Alone, Police Sub-Inspector and dying declaration recorded by PW10-Sunil Rawan Hate, the Special Judicial Magistrate. The dying declaration recorded by PW 9 is at Exh. 27 and the dying declaration recorded by PW 10 is at Exh. 33.