RAJARAM SHANKAR GHODAKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. The accused has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 300/.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim were married for 10

(3.) The prosecution has relied on the testimony of 10 witnesses in support of its case, besides the two dying declarations. The first dying declaration which was recorded by PW6 the A.S.I, on duty is at Exh.23. The second dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate who is examined as PW7. This statement is at Exh.26. We have perused both these statements and find that they are consistent. In both the statements, the victim has disclosed that she had tried to impress upon her husband not to imbibe alcoholic drinks. This advice enraged him and he doused her with kerosene and set her on fire with a lighted matchstick. She has also revealed in her statements that when her clothes were ablaze, her 5 year old son came rushing to her and clutched her, due to which he also suffered burns. The victim has further stated that the accused admitted her son and herself to the Civil Hospital. On perusal of both the statements at Exh.23 and 26, we find that the statements are genuine and the attempt made by the accused before the trial Court to discredit these statements is futile. The trial Court has thus rightly accepted the dying declarations. The fact that the victim has disclosed that the accused admitted her and her son to the hospital indicates that her version is genuine and was not at the behest of her parents who were examined as PW3 and PW8. Both PW3 and PW8, the mother and the father, respectively, of the victim have deposed that although their daughter Suvarna was married to the accused 10 years prior to the incident, she used to complain about the behaviour of the accused when she occasionally visited them. She had disclosed to them that the accused used to beat her often under the influence of liquor. Four days prior to the incident, the victim had visited them and had mentioned that the accused continued with his boorish conduct of beating her when he imbibed alcohol. She also told them that she often tried to pursuade him to refrain from consuming alcohol. Both PW3 and PW8 had at that point of time advised the victim to reside with them but she returned to her matrimonial home because her children were not with her. PW3 and PW8 were informed of the injuries suffered by Suvarna when the brother of the accused informed them at about 6.00 am. on 20.6.2002. They reached the Solapur Civil Hospital at about 10.00 am. Both PW3 and PW8 have testified that Suvarna spoke to them about the manner in which she and her son Nagnath sustained the burn injuries. PW3 and PW 8 have corroborated each other and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. There is nothing in the crossexamination of either of these witnesses to discredit their testimony.