RAGHUNATH RAMDAS SHENDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant in the present appeal filed under Sec. 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenges his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By the Judgment dated 7th July, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2010, he has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was married with one Dhrupada in the year 1996. The appellant had two children. The appellant, however, used to doubt the character of his wife and used to harass her. On 19th Nov., 2009 at about 5.00 p.m., when the appellant returned home, he enquired with his wife as to what she was doing for the entire day. He picked up a quarrel with her and thereafter poured kerosene on her person. He then set her on fire. Dhrupada was then removed to the hospital by her neighbours. Initially, an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Penal Code came to be recorded. However, on 25th Nov., 2009, said Dhrupada expired on account of burn injuries. The appellant was accordingly charged for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the appellant did not plead guilty. He was accordingly tried and at the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was sentenced in the manner stated herein above. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Ms. Sonali Saware, the learned counsel [appointed] to represent the appellant, submitted that the evidence on record was not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant. According to her, though there were two Dying Declarations at Exhs.44 and 36 on record, there were various inconsistencies therein and same could not be relied upon. Though PW 6 and PW 8 had referred to the statements made by Dhrupada to them, their depositions also did not warrant acceptance in view of inconsistencies therein. Both the said witnesses were related with the deceased. The mental and physical health of Dhrupada, while recording the Dying Declarations, had not been brought on record and, therefore, a doubt was created in that regard. It was, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant was liable to be set aside.