SUREKHA BHARAT KUTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants who are the Accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken an exception to the Judgment and order dated 16 th July, 2004 by which they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ each. The allegation against the Appellants is of committing murder of one Ranjana Raghunath Kute who died on 21 st January, 1991.

(2.) The original Accused No.4 Raghunath Vishwanath Kute is the husband of the deceased Ranjana. The Accused No.3 is the brother of the Accused No.4. The Accused No.2 is a sister of the Accused No.4 and the Accused No.1 is the wife of the Accused No.3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the marriage between the deceased Ranjana and the Accused No.4 was solemnized about eight months prior to the date of incident i.e. 18 th January, 1991. The case made out by the prosecution is that after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically by the Accused. The allegation is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty from Diwali festival of 1990 till 18 th January, 1991. The case of the prosecution is that the present Appellants (Accused Nos.1 and 2) on 18 th January, 1991 at about 8.00 a.m. in the matrimonial home of the deceased poured Kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 21 st January 1991. Therefore, the Appellants (Accused Nos.1 and 2) and two others were charged with commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. The Appellants have been convicted for the said offence. However, the other two accused have been acquitted. Apart from this charge, all the Accused were charged with commission of an offence punishable under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the Accused have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is based on the oral as well as the written dying declarations of the deceased. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants as well as the learned A.P.P for the State it will be necessary to make a reference to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The first prosecution witness is P.W.No.1 Parvati Shriram Bhabad. She stated that she was residing near the house of the Accused No.4. She stated that she knew the Accused No.4 and they were on visiting terms. The witness is the real sister of deceased Ranjana. She stated that as she knew the Accused No.4, she has suggested the proposal of the Accused No.4 to her uncle for the deceased Ranjana. She stated that the marriage was solemnized on 20 th May, 1990 and after solemnization of the marriage, the deceased started residing in the premises of the Accused No.4 at Laldongar at Chembur along with the Accused Nos. 1 to 3. This witness identified the Accused persons in the Court. She stated that after Diwali of 1990, the Accused started harassing the deceased Ranjana and they started preventing deceased from visiting her house. She stated that the deceased had been to her house on Makar Sankrati day but she went back on the same day. She stated that her another sister Vijaya visited the matrimonial home of the deceased on the next day after Makar Sankrant. She disclosed that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the Accused persons and the deceased was abused by the Accused persons. The witness stated that on 18 th January, 1991 at about 8.00 a.m., the Accused No.3 came to her residence and enquired about her husband. She informed the Accused No.3 that her husband had proceeded to attend his duty. Thereafter, the Accused No.3 went away. After some time, one old lady who was known to the witness came to her house and instructed to her proceeded immediately as Ranjana had got burnt. She stated that after learning this, she along with her maternal aunt Subhadra rushed to the house of the deceased. She stated that Ranjana was lying in her house and was in burnt condition. She stated that when the maternal aunt Subhadra asked the Appellants as to what happened to the deceased, the Appellants started pushing and pulling her. She stated that she along with her maternal aunt went along with the deceased Ranjana to Rajawadi Hospital. She stated that after the deceased regained consciousness, on being asked she disclosed that the Appellants poured kerosene on her person and burnt her. In the examination in chief she lastly stated that her statement was recorded by the police on 18 th January, 1991 at the Rajawadi Hospital itself. In the cross examination, she stated that her place of residence as well as the place of residence of the Accused was in hutment area. She stated that the distance between her house and the house of the Accused was of five minutes by walk. She stated that if somebody shouts from the house of the Accused, she cannot hear the same while sitting in her house. She stated that there were 100 to 200 houses in between her house and the house of the Accused. She stated that if one has to come from the house of the Accused to her house , he has to cross the main road and walk through a lane. She stated that she was not aware about the place of residence of the old lady who came to her house to inform her that the deceased was burnt. She stated that she knew the lady as she was coming for a period of 8 years for seeking bhiksha (for begging). She was unable to tell whether the name of the lady was Anusaya Bhalerao. She stated that Makar Sankranti was on 14 th January, 1991 and she had visited the house of the deceased three to four days prior to 14 th January, 1991 at about 9.00 p.m. She stated that the deceased had come to her house and told her that her brother in law and sister in law had abused her. She stated that after hearing this she along with her aunt had visited the house of the deceased. An omission was brought on record that she did not state in the police statement about the incident conveyed to her by the deceased that the brother in law and sister in law had abused her. She stated that her sister Vijaya had come to her house one month prior to the incident. She stated that her maternal aunt Subhadra was residing two to three houses away from her house and the Accused No.2 (Appellant No.2) was residing two houses away from her house. She denied the correctness of the suggestion that there was a quarrel between the Appellant No.2 and herself. She stated that the old lady came to her house after about half an hour after the visit of the Accused No.3 to her house on the day of the incident. She stated that when she reached the house of the deceased, the fire was extinguished but, she was in an unconscious condition. She stated that her uncle Raosaheb, the Accused No.3 and others lifted the deceased Ranjana by hand and she was taken to the Rajawadi Hospital by taxi. She stated that she went to Rajawadi Hospital by a separate taxi. She stated that the tax carrying the deceased and taxi by which she was travelling reached the Hospital at the same time at about 10.00 a.m. She stated that her statement was recorded at about 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. She stated that when her statement was recorded, no one was present. In the cross examination she was called upon to reproduce the said words uttered by the deceased. The said words have been recorded deposition in Marathi language, the English translation of which reads thus: