MALANBAI NANASAHEB TEMKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order of acquittal dated 28/7/1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in sessions Case No. 156/1996, acquitting respondent No. 2 of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell, are that : respondent No. 2 is working as typist. During the relevant period he was residing at Aurangabad. He married deceased ashabai sometime in May or June of the year 1995. On the day of occurrence, i. e. on 19th of April, 1996, both had come to village Galle Borgaon. At about 2. 00 or 2. 30 p. m. , respondent No. 2 returned from the bus stand. As he was suspecting chastity of his wife, respondent No. 2 made her to write a chit, poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. There was a scuffle between the two as respondent No. 2 refused to open the door. After the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the hospital, where she made first dying declaration to Executive magistrate Shri Bombale, exonerating her husband and other relatives and making it clear that she caught fire by an accident from the burning stove. Petitioner, however, was not satisfied. He, therefore, made an application to the investigating Officer that another dying declaration should be recorded. On his insistence, request was made to the same Special Executive Magistrate for recording 2nd dying declaration. In the 2nd dying declaration, the deceased disclosed that she was set on fire by her husband, because he was suspecting her chastity and that because the first dying declaration was made by her under the influence of her relatives from the matrimonial side. Thus, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, offence was registered and after conclusion of investigation, respondent No. 2 came to be charge-sheeted.

(3.) After conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the evidence in respect of cruelty does not inspire confidence. Referring to variance between two dying declarations, learned Judge came to the conclusion that the dying declarations are not reliable. In the absence of cogent evidence to establish the guilt of respondent No. 2, learned Judge held that the offence has not been proved beyond doubt. In this view of the matter, he acquitted respondent No. 2 of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal code. This order has been impugned in the present revision petition.