DIGAMBAR Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.5.2012 passed by the District Judge -2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Sessions Case No. 32/2010 by which the appellant - accused No. 1 - Digambar Karbhari Kadu was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant in this Court.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that wife of the appellant - Digambar by name Shital was married with him and had a daughter. On 21.4.2010 at about 9 -00 p.m., quarrel had taken place between the deceased Shital and the accused No. 3 - Shobha i.e. wife of his brother by name Dattatraya and Dattatraya abused Shital under the influence of alcohol. Dattatraya and his wife threatened the appellant - accused No. 1 to control Shital, otherwise they would make arrangement for Shital. The appellant No. 1 got annoyed and in an anger took the can of kerosene and poured kerosene on the person of Shital and set her on fire by live match -stick. She shouted loudly, her family members and neighbours rushed and immediately took her to the hospital at Newasa. The Police Station Officer was informed about the Medico Legal Case and the FIR was registered at Crime No. 98/2010. Mr. Sanap, the Tahsildar, Newasa, came to record the dying declaration of Shital and recorded the dying declaration (Exh. 48). Then Shital was referred to Civil Hospital at Ahmednagar, but she expired on 28.4.2010. Thereafter, the offence of murder was registered. Spot panchanama was drawn. Seizures were made. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Charge -sheet was filed. The learned trial Judge recorded the evidence and the trial was held. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. brother of the appellant and his wife, but convicted the appellant for pouring kerosene on the person of Shital and for setting her on fire. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) PER contra, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is fully trustworthy in the form of dying declaration, which was immediately recorded and thereafter the patient was shifted to Ahmednagar. There is then the evidence of oral dying declaration before the Court, which is fully satisfactory and has been rightly believed by the learned trial Judge. The doctor certified the mental as well as physical fitness of the patient to give the dying declaration and, therefore, there is no reason why the dying declaration should be discarded. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.