STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHADEO NARAYAN MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant State, seeks to challenge the judgment of acquittal of respondents Mahadeo and Jagdeo in sessions Trial No. 47/91, decided on 10-7-1991 by the Additional Sessions judge, Akola, by which they were acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts leading to the prosecution of the respondents, are that, Deceased sushila was the wife of P. W. 1 Sukhdeo. The respondents Mahadeo and Jagdeo are his brothers. All the three brothers were residing separately, but in the adjacent houses. P. W. 1 Sukhdeo had three she-goats. He sold two of them for Rs. 1200/ -. The third one was sold, thereafter; to one Rama for Rs. 311/ -. It is alleged that the respondents were demanding the amount of this she-goat from him and his deceased wife Sushila. His wife Sushila refused to give that money, so also p. W. 1 Sukhdeo. On 16-10-1990 there was quarrel between him and the respondents on that count. It is alleged that respondents beat him and his wife deceased Sushila in the evening on that day. They poured kerosene on Sushila, however, people assembled there and the matter did not proceed further. Thereafter, P. W. 1 Sukhdeo and his wife Sushila started going to lodge report to the Police Station. They came to Lohara Phata. However, respondent Jagdeo came there and did not allow them to board the bus. He pulled P. W. I Sukhdeo from S. T. Bus, as such he could not go, but his wife went to the Police Station. Thereafter, when respondent left the place, he also went to Police Station. His wife deceased Sushila was there. She gave report. Then they returned.

(3.) On the following day i. e. on 17-10-1990, at about 4. 30 p. m, P. W. 1 sukhdeo had gone to grocery shop to bring tea leaves and Gur. He heard the noise that one lady was burning near the house of respondents. He rushed towards his home. He noticed his wife in flames in front of his house. He poured water on her person. Her flames were extinguished. She was made to lie and he asked her what had happened. It is alleged that she told him that kerosene was poured by respondent Jagdeo on her person and respondent Mahadeo held her and respondent Jagdeo set her on fire. She suffered burn injuries all over the body. It is alleged that incidently police had come to Gram Panchayat office for the purpose of one investigation, so P. W. 1 Sukhdeo rushed to Gram Panchayat office. He found P. W. 12 P. S. I. Deomurar there. He told him about the incident. Thereafter P. S. I. Deomurar and other persons came to the spot of incident. P. S. I. Deomurar asked the deceased as to how it had happened. She told that her brothers-in-law i. e. respondents Mahadeo and Jagdeo picked up quarrel with her on the price of she-goat and respondent Mahadeo caught hold of her and respondent Jagdeo poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her. He took down his report in his own handwriting and took the thumb print of the deceased sushila on the same (Ex. 41). Thereafter, she was made to sit in the cart and she was taken to main Hospital, Akola, for the treatment. As the Police Station Ural was on the way, she was taken there and on her report, Crime No. 109/90 for the offence under section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondents. She was later taken to main Hospital, Akola, for her treatment. P. W. 1 Sukhdeo, deceased Sushila's husband, accompanied her to the main Hospital. P. S. I. Deomurar then prepared spot panchanama as per Ex. 21 and seized some articles as per Ex. 9. He recorded statements of some witnesses.