RAVIRAJ SAYBANNA GUNTNOL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 19-8-1999 passed by the Add1. Sessions Judge, solapur, where in the accused was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under section 302 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer R. I. for one year. He, however, was acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 (2) of the I. P. C.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Khamkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and mrs. Kantharia, learned A. P. P. for the State, at length. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are, thus-Deceased Shantibai and her husband were residing at village Modnimb, Tal. Madha, Dist. Solapur. The accused was involved in construction work called as centring at village Modnimb. Shantabai was working under accused and had developed illicit relations with him for about 9 years prior to the incident. The accused started suspecting that she also had illicit relations with some other person and this fact gave rise to the quarrels between them. On the fateful day i. e. on 4-3-1998, accused went to the house of Shantabai after noon time and started quarrel on the ground that she was having illicit relations with others. He abused and threatened her. At about 7. 00 p. m. when shantabai was in her house, the accused went there and started quarrel with her and in the course of the quarrel he took can of kerosene and poured the kerosene upon her person and set her on fire. Shantabai's husband was working as a labourer and had gone outside, who came on the scene when he saw smoke from his house. He rushed to the scene and saw that his wife was put on fire. On seeing the husband of Shantabai, the accused ran away. Husband of Shantabai poured water and doused the flame. P. W. 3 also saw the accused running from the spot when Shantabai was burning at 7. 00 p. m. on that day. Shantabai had sustained 96% burns. She was taken to the hospital where her first dying declaration was recorded by the Police Head constable P. W. 4 Kadam who was on duty. He recorded the dying declaration under the supervision of the Medical Officer who was present at that time. The said dying declaration was also treated as the F. I. R. on which basis the offence came to be registered against the accused in due course. In the meantime, the police had sent message to the Special Executive Magistrate (S. E. M. in short) who also came on the scene and P. W. 5 Mangalpalli, S. E. M. Solapur recorded the dying declaration of Shantabai under the supervision of the medical Officer. Evidently, Shantabai succumbed to her injuries. Her body was sent for post-mortem examination after inquest panchnama. The Investigating Officer also visited the place of incident arid prepared the panchnama and also seized incriminating articles form the spot which were sent to the c. A. whose report was received in due course which is part of the record. Several witnesses were examined in the course of the investigation and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of law.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused person for murder of Shantabai alongwith some other charges. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Evidence of the accused is that of total denial. Prosecution led its evidence at length in which course several oral as well as written dying declarations formulated the foundation of the prosecution evidence. Relying on the available evidence, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused for murder of Shantabai and, therefore, convicted and consequently sentenced the accused in the aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal.