NARAYAN GANPAT JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500.00.

(2.) WE have with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor scrutinised the entire evidence on record before the Sessions court and find that the prosecution has built its case on the following facts. The victim was the wife of the appellant. She died of burn injuries on 14.3.1996. The neighbours heard her screaming to be saved. Therefore, they rushed to her rescue. PW2 who is one of her neighbours wrapped the victim in a blanket. She was removed to the Civil hospital at Phalton. She was then shifted to the Civil hospital at Satara. PW10, the mother, after hearing of the incident, rushed to the hospital at Phalton. PW10, accompanied the victim to the civil hospital, Satara. Three dying declarations were recorded; one at 9.10am and the other two which are at Exhibit 43 and 34 respectively were recorded at about 12 noon, at an interval of 10 minutes. The victim succumbed to the injuries at around 11 pm on 16.3.1996 in the Civil Hospital, Satara.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to establish the offence committed by the appellant. PW1 is the Panch witness in the spot Panchnama. PW2 to 8 are persons who lived in the neighbouring houses and who saw the victim was burnt. PW9 is the son-in-law of the victim who saw the victim in the Civil Hospital after the incident. None of them have implicated the appellant or have stated that they were informed by the victim that she had suffered burns on account of the appellant setting her ablaze. PW2 to 9 have all been declared hostile. PW10 is the mother of the victim. She has stated that she went to the Civil Hospital, Phalton alongwith her brother in law, immediately after she heard of her daughter being burnt. She has deposed that she arrived at the Civil Hospital between 7 am and 8 am. She has stated that the victim told her that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and had set her afire. PW10 has also deposed that the victim was subjected to ill-treatment by the appellant and that the victim had told her that this ill-treatment was because the appellant had a mistress named Sitabai. She has further stated that her daughter spoke of the appellant’s addiction to liquor and that the victim had informed her that the burn injuries were caused by the Appellant because of these reasons. PW10 has admitted that the relations between her and the appellant were not cordial and they were not on visiting terms with each other. PW11 is the brother of the victim. He visited the victim at the Civil hospital, Satara at about 3.45pm. He has also stated that the victim told him that she suffered from the burn injuries because her husband had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her because of his addiction to liquor and extra-marital relations.