SITARAM NANA SARVADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the rival contentions on this appeal preferred by both the appellants challenging the judgment and order of conviction in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2010. The judgment and order of conviction was passed on 30.5.2012 by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of three months each was imposed. Both the appellants/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 and 506 r/w Section34 of IPC. State Government did not file any appeal challenging the acquittal for the said offences. Both the appellants/accused have challenged their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Presently, both the appellants are on bail granted by this Court during pendency of the appeal.

(2.) So far as the case as against the present appellants is concerned, certain factual position is required to be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the case and to ascertain what are the allegations / charges against the appellants.

(3.) The actual incident of setting the victim woman by name Laxmibai on fire occurred in the evening of 2.12.2009 apparently at the house of the present appellants. Present appellants are in-laws of the victim woman The victim woman Laxmibai was the wife of one Raju, the son of the appellants. It was the third marriage of Raju. His first wife had abandoned him. Thereafter, he married second time with one woman who died due to burn injuries and in that matter, Raju was made an accused. He was convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but the said conviction was reversed by this Court in another appeal. It is the third marriage of said Raju with the victim Laxmibai. Apparently, said Raju has no noticeable avocation and was not earning his livelihood in the usual manner. He was in habit of demanding money from his father i.e present appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 is an exserviceman and retired from military after 17 years of service. Thereafter, he took some another job with medical department of the State. From that job also, he retired and as such was getting pension from two jobs i.e from the defence and also from the State medical department. Raju, the husband of the victim woman was asking for some part of the pension to be given for his livelihood and for his wife Laxmibai. There used to be some quarrel and apparently, in order to avoid more disputes, appellant No. 2 i.e mother of said Raju had arranged for transfer of her owned landed property about 2.5 Acres in the name of said Raju and his wife Laxmibai. This factual position is substantiated by the evidence of PW 2 Asha who is the mother of the victim woman Laxmibai. Her evidence is of much significance as it relates to the alleged motive tried to be established by the prosecution as to demand of dowry to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellants from the victim woman Laxmibai.