CHHAYA BHAUSAHEB BHINGARDIVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Appeal has been filed original accused Nos.2 and 4 in Sessions Case No.220 of 2013, who were held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, 498-A read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with original accused No.1 - Raju @ Rajendra Baban Patole.

(2.) Before we turn to the disputed facts, there are certain admitted facts which we want to place on record. Original accused Rajendra is the brother of appellant No.1 and son of appellant No.2. Accused No.1 Rajendra was married to one Maya on 18/12/2007. Maya and accused No.1 have daughter by name Shrawani, born on 8/12/2008. Maya had received burn injuries on 14/4/2013 and therefore, she came to be admitted to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. After the MLC was given, Special Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar Mr. Gorakshnath Ghugarkar was informed and requested to take her dying declaration. He has recorded the dying declaration of Maya between 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. on 15/4/2013. Thereafter, it appears that ASI Abdul Kalim Ibrahim Raje, attached to Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, recorded second dying declaration of Maya around 4.15 p.m. on 15/4/2013 itself and on the basis of this second dying declaration, Exhibit-38, the offence came to be registered vide Crime No.181 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Sec. 307, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) After the offence was registered, the accused came to be arrested. Panchnama of the spot was executed. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. However, thereafter on 30/4/2013 Maya succumbed to the injuries and therefore, inquest panchnama was executed and the dead body was sent for postmortem. Offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against in all seven accused persons.