BABAN DADUSRAO PAKHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a result of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna on 14/6/2016 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2015, the appellant-convict has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) Crime was registered on the basis of dying declaration given by Meerabai on 25/12/2014, wherein she has alleged that she was married to appellant husband 10 years back. That, on 25/12/2014 she requested appellant husband to help her in cooking meals. Getting enraged by the same, appellant allegedly poured kerosene from a bottle and ignited her. In the backdrop of her said dying declaration, crime was registered by PW6 PSI Dnyaneshwar Sanap. While undergoing treatment, Meerabai succumbed to 63% burns. Appellant was arrested, investigation was carried out by PW11 PSI Sunil Gopinwar and on finding sufficient material, he was chargesheeted and made to face trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who on framing charge, recording evidence, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both sides, reached to a finding that accused is responsible for the homicidal burns and thereby held him guilty and convicted him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment under challenge is patently perverse and illegal. He would submit that though there were allegations of ill-treatment, said charge has not been proved. Inviting our attention to the two dying declarations, he would submit that the same are not voluntary and consistent and not inspiring confidence and therefore, the same ought not to have been relied by learned trial Judge while appreciating the evidence.