VANEETA YESHWANT JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants have challenged the judgment dated 2nd May 2002, under which they have been convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500 / - and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of one month.

(2.) The Appellants are the wife and the son- in- law of the deceased. The deceased and the children of Appellant No.2 lived together in the servants' quarters of Central Railway Officers' flat at Dadar, Mumbai. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased- Yeshwant Ganpat Jadhav, husband of Appellant No.1, was unemployed for several years. He had suffered a paralytic stroke 8 years before the incident. He was bed- ridden. He was being looked after by Appellant No.1, his wife and their daughter one Sunita. The deceased had no home of his own. He was, therefore, living in the house of his daughter and the son- in- law along with his wife. The wife of the deceased had an illicit relationship with her son- in- law. It is the case of the prosecution that the wife of the deceased and his son- in- law committed the murder of the deceased by the wife throwing two bottles of kerosene on the person of the deceased and the son- in- law throwing a lighted matchstick over him. The extent of burns suffered by the deceased were 70 to 75%, upon the general observation in the inquest panchanama . The postmortem report has shown 55% burns suffered by him.

(3.) It is the further case of the prosecution that the incident took place on 1.5.2000 at 9 a.m. when the daughter of the deceased Sunita had gone out of the servant s' quarters in the officers' flat where she did domestic work. She came back upon hearing the shout s of the deceased and abuses of his wife cursing the deceased. She saw that the deceased, her father, was set a blaze. She removed him to the hospital. She gave the history of homicidal burns suffered by the injured to the doctor upon admission. An EPR entry was made. Police Officer was informed and called. The Police officer recorded the statement of the injured, which was treated as an FIR and a criminal case under the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered on 1.5.2000. The statement of the injured annexed to the FIR, running in 4 pages, shows the entire life-sketch of the injured after his marriage with Appellant No.1 since 1964. The statement shows how the incident took place.