SURESH ISHWAR PHALKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD respective counsel for parties. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN regard to an incident that took place on25-7-2001, in which the victim Babai (PW1) w/o original accused no.1 Suresh (appellant no.1) was set on fire by pouring kerosene with assistance of Sakharbai (appellant no.2), who is admittedly second wife of appellant no.1, both the appellants were tried before the III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2001 for offences under Section498-A, 307 and 506 r/w 34 of INdian Penal Code and the learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated19-3-2002 convicted the appellants for offence under Section307 of INdian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month; and appellant no.1, in addition, was convicted for offence under Section498-A of INdian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant no.2 was, however, acquitted of offence under Section498-A of INdian Penal Code. Both the appellants were acquitted of offence under Section506 r/w 34 of INdian Penal Code. So far as appellant no.1 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Sessions Judge by this appeal.

(3.) THOUGH I have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits, having regard to clinching evidence on record which has been rightly accepted by the trial court, I do not think, that so far as conviction is concerned, any interference is called for. In the light of submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, I have independently assessed the evidence of victim Babai (PW1) in which she has categorically stated as to how the incident has taken place, in which at night while she was sleeping, kerosene was poured on her person by the appellant and she was set on fire. It is pertinent to note that the fact that the victim Babai (PW1) suffered burn injuries is not disputed. It is borne out on the evidence on record and it is not challenged also that at the time when the incident took place the victim was residing in the house with the appellant. That is the reason why the trial court has rightly rejected the defence that the victim suffered burns when she was at her parents house. I have found that the defence was palpably false as also illogical. It is found, that the version of victim Babai (PW1) before the court as regards the incident that has taken place, has remained undisturbed though she was subjected to searching cross-examination by the defence. It is true that the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out some inconsistencies, as also delay that has occasioned in actually lodging the complaint. But, after considering over all evidence of the complainant, coupled with medical evidence, the inconsistencies which are brought out by the defence are found to be inconsequential. As regards delay in lodging the complaint it is apparent on the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Patil (PW6) when he has said that initially when he examined Babai (PW1) when she was admitted in the hospital, she was not able to give a statement. Therefore, in that contingency, later on after lapse of sometime when she was conscious and fit to make a statement, police recorded her statement which was taken as the complaint, on the basis of which offence came to be registered. Therefore, when intrinsic solitary evidence of victim Babai (PW1) inspires confidence; no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the appellants by accepting the solitary version of the victim. The fact that the victim Babai (PW1) was a person who has suffered injuries in the incident and in such situation, her evidence before the court is to be accepted with added advantage that she herself is the sufferer and sustained injuries. Therefore, conviction of appellants for offence under Section307 of Indian Penal Code and that of appellant no.1 for offence under Section498-A of Indian Penal Code has to be confirmed.