INDAR PRABHAKAR DOUNDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is preferred against the conviction of the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 500/ by the impugned judgement and order dated 21.3.2003.

(2.) The accused and the victim Kunda lived as man and wife with the parents and other members of the family of the accused. They had one son who was about months old when the incident occurred. On 13.6.1999, the accused came home in the afternoon in an intoxicated state and started abusing her since she had not filled and stored water in their home in the morning for being used during the day. In the absence of the other members of the family of the accused, at about 4.30 pm, he again started abusing the victim. He told her that he would set her on fire and did so by dousing her with kerosene and set her on fire. The accused prevented the victim from going out of the house by bolting the door from the inside. The victim shouted out for help. The accused then tried to put out the fire with his hands and then by throwing water on the victim. He then ran away from the house. The victim went to her mother's house which was nearby and then to the police station to lodge a complaint. She was later taken to the hospital. The hospital records show that the history narrated by the victim to the attending Doctor was that her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The record also indicates that the victim mentioned that the fire was extinguished by her husband by pouring water over her. She was admitted to hospital at about 6.30 pm. Two dying declarations were recorded, one by the SEO and the other by the Investigating Officer. The victim suffered 30 35% superficial to deep homicidal thermal burns. The victim succumbed to these injuries on 19.6.1999. The accused was arrested on 20.7.1999 and charged with murder. He was tried by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The accused has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) As the Advocate for the accused was not present in Court although the matter was called out twice, we found it necessary to proceed with the matter with the assistance of the learned APP. We have scrutinised the evidence on record including the dying declarations. We have also perused the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge impugned in this appeal.