MANIK SANTOSH GUNJARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein takes exception to his conviction under Sections 302, 498A and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Penal Code for short) by judgment dated 9th December 2009. By said judgment passed in Sessions Trial no. 136 of 2009 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge Nagpur, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302, rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 498A and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 436 of the Penal Code. The facts as can be gathered from the material on record are that, the appellant was married to one Mira in the year 1996. They were having a son Pravin. The appellant was stated to be habituated to having liquor and used to beat Mira. On 15th December 2008 between 2 P.M. to 3 P.M. a quarrel took place between Mira and the appellant. It is the case that the appellant assaulted Mira, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire thereby causing her death. The investigation commenced on the basis of complaint lodged on the same day. On completion of the postmortem examination and other formalities including the investigation the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the learned Magistrate. The case was thereafter committed for trial to the Sessions Court. The appellant pleaded not guilty and hence was tried. On conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted in the manner stated above. Hence present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short) has been preferred by the appellant.

(2.) Shri U.R. Phasate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in absence of any cogent evidence the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Sessions Court. It is submitted that the depositions of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are those of interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the conduct of P.W. 2 after seeing the incident was unnatural. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the prosecution had failed in proving beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant was therefore entitled to be acquitted.

(3.) Shri S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Sessions Court. It was submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant. It was submitted that even if P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were interested witnesses, their depositions could not be discarded only on said account. It was submitted that there was sufficient material on record to hold that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore sought dismissal of the appeal.