DEEPAK VASANT KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused) challenges the Judgment and Order dated18th March, 2002 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 258/99 convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under section302 of I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo R. I. for six months. Since the accused was undergoing life imprisonment in respect of the offence of murder committed by him earlier, the sentence has been ordered to run after the accused undergoes the sentence of imprisonment in earlier case. THE accused has been convicted for causing murder of his wife Lalita.

(2.) In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is as under : - Deceased Lalita was wife of the accused. They had one daughter-Diksha. At the time of incident which occurred in the wee hours of 6th December, 1997 the accused was residing at Nagpur along with his wife and daughter as a tenant of Savita Karwade (P. W.1 ). The accused was released on parole on30-10-1997. IN the wee hours of 6th December, 1997 Savita heard commotion from the house of the accused and, therefore, she rushed there to ascertain the cause of commotion. She found deceased Lalita burning. She extinguished the fire and Lalita informed her that she was set ablaze by her husband-the accused. The victim was rushed to Government Medical Hospital, Nagpur. Her relatives were informed about the incident. Dying declaration of deceased Lalita was recorded on the same day at about7. 20 p. m. by P.W.6 Padmakar Bade. IN the said dying declaration the victim implicated the accused as the person who has set her ablaze. Pursuant to the report (Exh. 7) lodged by Savita, F. I. R. was registered under Section302 of I. P. C. against the accused in Butibori Police Station. Pursuant to the said F. I. R. the investigation was conducted and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Upon committal the charge under section302 of I. P. C. was framed against the accused. During the course of the trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced certain documents like spot panchanama, post mortem report etc. which were admitted by the accused. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution convicted the accused under section302 of I. P. C. and sentenced him as above.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Dhote, the learned A. P. P. submitted that there is a cogent evidence led by the prosecution to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. He submitted that Diksha was a natural eye-witness to the incident and her evidence inspires confidence. He then submitted that although the doctor who gave certificate before recording the dying declaration by Padmakar has not been examined that by itself is not fatal since the fact that such certificate was given by a doctor has been clearly established. The evidence of Ramesh Ganvir and Gautam Dangre proves the oral dying declarations made by the deceased to them and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve these witnesses. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are borne out from the evidence on record and, therefore, no interference is called for in the appeal. Mr. Mirza, learned A. P. P. who was requested to assist the Court placed reliance on the following Judgment : Kamalnath Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 SCC(Cri) 1121.