BHIMRAO JAGANNATH KOLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 17/3/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 380/2009. The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer SI for three months. He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under sec. 506 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default to suffer SI for one month. He was acquitted from the charge of commission of offences punishable under sec. 504 of IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was granted set-off under sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant was married to his wife Laxmi Koli and they were staying together with their daughter. On 28/10/2008 at about 4.00 p.m. under the influence of liquor the appellant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. He had bolted the room from inside. The neighbours came to help the victim. He then opened the door and ran away. In the process, he banged his head against the wall and suffered injury. The victim was taken to hospital by her neighbours. She gave her statement to police. It was treated as FIR. The investigation was carried out. The appellant was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The spot panchnama was conducted. In the meantime, the parents of the victim who were residing at about 1 km away from their house were also informed. They came to see her. She narrated the same incident to them. The clothes and other articles were sent for chemical analysis. However, the report is not on record. At the conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session.

(3.) During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the victim, her parents, a neighbour who took her to hospital and who informed her parents, two panchas, the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. Learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence. The defence of the appellant was of total denial. That defence was not believed and ultimately the appellant was convicted and sentenced.