MANIK VITHALRAO SURYAWANSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-original accused in Sessions Case No. 65/92 preferred the present appeal challenging the order of conviction under Section 302 of I. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short) as well as the sentence of imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine, R. I. for one year for the said offence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge at Latur on 30/12/99. THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.

(2.) THE incident in question was alleged to have taken place on 9/12/1991 at about 4 p. m. at the residential house of deceased Sushilabai W/o Madhukar Andhare situated in More Nagar, Latur. P. W. 3 Mahadeo Andhare is the son, P. W. 5 Reena Andhare and p. w. 7 Anita Kedare are the daughters of deceased Sushilabai. At the time of incident, p. w. 3 Mahadeo was staying with his mother. However, p. w. 5 was staying at Ambajogai and Anita was staying at Parbhani. THE accused was also staying at More Nagar, Latur. P. W. 2 Heerabai and p. w. 4 Ram are the neighbours of the deceased. On the date of incident i. e. on 9/12/91 at about 4 p. m. deceased Sushilabai was at her house. She was preparing tea. All of a sudden accused-appellant had entered in the house. Immediately he poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire by a match stick. Immediately accused ran away from the spot. THE deceased Sushilabai who was under the flames, came out of the house and started crying. THE female members came to the spot and covered her burnt body. Her mother-in-law who was staying separate, came to the house and shifted her to the hospital. When the accused ran away from the house of deceased, the neighbours had seen him while running away. P. W. 3 Mahadeo got the information of this incident and had gone to the hospital. When she was taking treatment in the hospital, her daughter Anita also met her and deceased made dying declaration with her that accused set her on fire. P. W. 11 Shripati Dhavile police head constable was on duty in the hospital. THE duty medical officer gave intimation that Sushilabai was admitted in the hospital. Immediately at 6. 45 p. m. this head constable confirmed from the doctor whether deceased was in a condition to give statement and then he recorded statement-cum-dying declaration Exh. 86 stating that the accused poured kerosene on her body and set her on fire and ran away from the house. THEreafter, on the request of police p. w. 6 Naib Tahsildar Shivaji had recorded dying declaration Exh. 55 of the deceased. On the next date, the accused was arrested under arrest panchanama Exh. 36. At the time of arrest burn injuries were found on his person, so he was referred to hospital. P. W. 1 Dr. Sow. Asha Gore examined the accused and issued medical certificate Exh. 35. THE deceased died on 13/12/1991. Before her death the offence was registered under Section 307 of I. P. C. on the dying declaration recorded by p. w. 11 police head constable Shripati. After her death offence was converted under Section 302 of the Code. Inquest panchanama Exh. 10 was recorded on the dead body. THE body was sent for post mortem. Dr. Patil conducted autopsy and prepared post mortem notes Exh. 38 and gave opinion that the cause of death is due to extensive burns. Spot panchanama Exh. 61 was recorded during the investigation and the burnt pieces of clothes smelling with kerosene found on the spot were seized. All the articles were sent for chemical analysis. THE C. A. issued certificate Exh. 37 and gave opinion that kerosene residues were detected on a match box and burnt pieces of clothes found on the spot. During the investigation when statement of Reena was recorded, it was transpired that accused was intending to marry with her and had visits with her at Parli but her mother refused to settle their marriage and that was alleged to be a motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased. After completing formalities of investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of C. J. M. at Latur on 15/2/1992 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) THE learned A. P. P. Shri. N. N. Jadhav, supported the order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. According to him, 3 dying declarations on record proved beyond doubt that accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set her on fire and caused death of deceased Sushilabai. According to learned A. P. P. the burden is on the accused to prove his unsound state of mind or insanity at the time of alleged incident but the accused did not discharge that burden. THE certificate produced by the accused showing the fact that he was admitted in mental hospital at Yerwada in the month of June, 1990 is not at all relevant because no evidence is laid about mental condition of the accused after his discharge from the mental hospital in the month of August, 1990 till the date of incident i. e. 9/12/1991. He has pointed out that after arrest of the accused he was produced before the Magistrate. That time no complaint of insanity was made but after one and half years of his arrest when bail application was preferred, this defence of insanity was put forth and for some days he was kept under observation but this state of health after one and half years of the incident is not at all relevant to presume that at the time of incident accused was of unsound mind. So according to prosecution the evidence laid at the trial proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. THEre is no evidence at all on behalf of the accused to prove his insanity, so the case did not fall under exception and the order of conviction recorded against the accused is perfectly legal.