SHRIKRISHNA PRALHAD MAHAKAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-husband has been convicted by the trial Court, vide its judgment dated 15.3.2001, of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, (for short "IPC") on the allegations that he subjected his wife Deepa to cruelty and on 4.3.2000 at 10 am killed her by pouring kerosene and set her ablaze. The appellant was charged and tried along with his parents, married sister and brother of the offender under sections 302, 109 read with 302, 498-A read with 34 IPC. Except the appellant, all other accused have been acquitted by the impugned judgment rendered in Sessions Case No.69 of 2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case unfolded from the evidence led by the prosecution, is that deceased Deepa and the appellant-accused (for short, "the accused" only) got married on 7.8.1999 at Buldhana. After marriage, for a month they stayed with his parents and brother at their native place. Thereafter, they shifted to Kendra Vihar, Kharghar, New Bombay. After staying there for some time, they shifted to Mhatre Chawl Belpada, Taluka Panvel, where the alleged occurrence took place. It is alleged that during their stay at native place, the other accused subjected the deceased to cruelty so as to coerce her parents to fulfil their demand of money. Even when they shifted to Khargar and then to Belpada she was subjected to cruelty by her husband for fulfilment of their demand of money from her parents. It is alleged that on 4.3.2000 at 10 am once again the accused insisted that the deceased should bring money from her parents and when she refused the accused allegedly closed the door from inside and poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. She raised a hue and cry, when, according to the prosecution, the neighbours rushed to their house and doused the fire. Thereafter, she was removed to MGM Hospital. She had sustained 97 percent burns. She succumbed to the injuries on 7.3.2000. During her stay in the hospital, the police recorded her statement on 5.3.2000 at 10.15 am (Exh-52A), which was treated as FIR and in pursuance thereof the offence came to be registered against the accused and the other members of his family under sections 307, 498-A read with 34 of IPC bearing C.R.No.36/2000. After she succumbed to the injuries, the offence under section 302 was added. The investigation was set in motion and in the course of investigation the statements of several witnesses were recorded, panchanamas were drawn and on completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against all the five accused and they were accordingly tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad. The defence propounded by the accused was of total denial.

(3.) THE conviction under section 302 IPC in the instant case is based on the evidence in the nature of dying declarations recorded by PSI and SEM and their testimonies in support thereof. Insofar as the oral dying declaration made to Heerabai Mhatre is concerned, the trial Court did not find her evidence worthy of credence. It is against this backdrop, Mr. Chitnis, learned senior counsel, at the outset, submitted that he has instructions to press this appeal only against the conviction of the accused under section 302 of IPC. In other words, he made it clear that he is not challenging the order of conviction of the accused under section 498-A of IPC and in view thereof while making submissions he concentrated on the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the dying declarations only. He fairly stated that there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the order of conviction under section 498-A against the accused. A perusal of the impugned Judgment and the evidence placed on record also shows that the conviction under section 498-A IPC is proper and does not deserve interference.