RAJU Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED - appellant challenges his conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge -2, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2011 by judgment delivered on 18th January 2012. This court has on 28/9/2012 rejected Criminal Application No. 573 of 2012 filed by the appellant for his release on bail. Criminal Application No. 572 of 2012 filed by the appellant was considered on 26th February 2015. It was moved under section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking leave to lead additional evidence on record.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated case of prosecution is accused and victim Lalita - his wife cohabited together at a village Borgaon(Meghe). On 4/10/2010 there was quarrel between them during night hours and thereafter victim went to sleep. At 1:30 PM she found her clothes wet and saw appellant throwing ignited matchstick on her person and running away. Villagers brought her to hospital where she gave dying declaration that the husband/appellant set her on fire. Said dying declaration has been recorded by police and on its basis crime came to be registered against appellant for offense punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. After death of the Lalita, it was converted into section 302 of India and Penal Code. Investigating officer completed investigation and submitted charge sheet before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for offenses punishable under section 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. In due course of time matter came to be committed for trial to court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Court framed the points - whether prosecution proves that death of Lalita was homicidal, whether the accused committed it by setting victim on fire after pouring kerosene on her person & lastly, whether he did so with the intention or knowledge to constitute it a murder? It held that prosecution discharged its burden and hence proceeded to punish appellant/accused under section 302 with life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ - or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Appellant has contended as under: -