SANJAY GOPINATH DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14-6-1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1998 by the learned Sessions judge, Raigad, Alibag convicting the appellant-accused under section 302 of indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life for that offence the above appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Advocate and the learned public prosecutor we have scrutinized and reappreciated the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution as revealed by our reappreciation stated briefly is that: on 20-4-1997 the accused went to the house of the victim as they were staying in the same vicinity around 1. 00 p. m. At that time the victim Jayshri was only person present in the house, her mother having gone out of the house. At that time, it is the case of the prosecution that Jayshri demanded sum of Rs. 300/- from accused as repayment of money advanced to him by mother of the victim. Enraged by this demand he accused sprinkled kerosene on the person of Jayshri, put her on fire, she started shouting, accused ran away. He was seen running away by P. W. 1 Shivaji Thokal who then arranged to douse the fire and took the victim Jayshri to the nearest hospital at Panvel, to be precized Panvel Municipal dispensary, where the victim was admitted as an indoor patient. Police was informed and statement of victim Jayshri was recorded by the police. Investigation was undertaken and thereafter on completion of the same the accused was arrested and was prosecuted as aforesaid. The prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses to prove its case that it was the accused who has murdered the victim Jayshri burning her to death. The accused denied the charge, claimed to be tried and was accordingly tried as aforesaid. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and consistent with that conclusion convicted him under section 302 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal as aforesaid.

(3.) P. W. 1 Shivaji Thokal is the person who was staying in the vicinity and on the fateful day around 1. 00 p. m. saw the accused running away from the house of the victim Jayshri and heard cries of the victim. He immediately went to the house of the victim, saw her on fire, doused the fire and put her in autorickshaw, took her to dispensary where she was admitted as an indoor patient. This witness has also reported the matter to the police and in the witness box has identified the clothes of the victim. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness which would require his testimony to be disbelieved.