LAXMAN IRAYYA YENGANTI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal presents a horrifying set of facts and is filed by the accused through jail. I need to record that Kumari Syed has argued the matter with considerable competence and has advanced a very strong and fervent plea that the conviction under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code be set aside and in the alternative that the two sentences awarded to the accused be made concurrent instead of consecutive.

(2.) THE accused comes from a very poor strata of society and was residing with his deceased wife Samakka and his three year old daughter Ambubai at Shashikala Nagar in Solapur city. At about noon on 18th March, 1992, smoke was noticed coming out of the hut and the neighbours forced opened the door only to find Samakka and the child Ambubai lying dead as a result of extensive burn injuries. The matter was reported to the police who commenced their investigations. The father of the deceased Samakka, who resided not too far away by the name of Vyankatesh (P. W. 3), also came to the spot. He lodged a complaint with the Police to the effect that the accused had been unemployed eversince the marriage, that the wife Samakka used to earn a little money by working as a bidi-roller and that the accused was addicted to the consumption of alcohol. According to Vyankatesh, the accessed used to extort money from the wife and used to threaten to kill her if she did not part with whatever meagre remnants out of her earnings that were left with her. The accused was also alleged to have been in the habit of mercilessly assaulting the wife. The general complaint of Vyankatesh was to the effect that even though the wife had committed suicide, she was driven to do this because of the persistent, grave and long-standing cruelty inflicted on her by the husband. The accused was accordingly placed under arrest for charges under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur recorded a conviction under both heads and sentended the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under the first head of charge. Under the second head of charge, the accused was sentended to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The learned trial Judge did not direct that the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The accused has been in custody from the date of his arrest and has preferred the appeal against this set of convictions and sentences.

(3.) KUMARI Syed, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused commenced her submissions by stating that, undoubtedly, on a first reading of the facts, a high degree of prejudice would normally and naturally be generated. She contended that the deaths of the young wife and the three-year-old child are, undoubtedly, most unfortunate and distressing, but it was her principal submission that the nexus between the incident or the cause thereof and the accused is non-existent and that the inferences drawn by the learned trial Judge that the accused was responsible for the suicide is unwarranted. For this purpose, Kumari Syed relied heavily on the fact that the evidence itself indicates that the accused was not on the scene when the incident took place or for that matter that there is nothing to indicate that he was at the scene of offence even prior to the incident. On the contrary, Kumari Syed relied heavily on the fact that the only entrance to the hut, namely the door, was closed and fastened from inside which clearly indicated, according to learned Counsel, that the accused could not have even set fire to the deceased persons and run away thereafter. Under these circumstances, Kumari Syed advanced the contention that the misconduct of the accused who admittedly was unemployed and was addicted to liquor on the top of it, led the Investigating Authorities and for that matter the neighbours and even the father of the deceased to the wrong conclusion that the accused was responsible for what had happened. It is the contention of learned Counsel that in the absence of direct clinching evidence that neither of the two charges were sustainable and that the accused has wrongly been convicted. In this regards, Kumari Syed placed reliance also on the fact that unfortunately the deceased Samakka was not alive when the neighbours reached her and, consequently, there is no dying declaration on record which could have been the strongest piece of evidence against the accused.