LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-91

SURENDRA DHULAPPA MANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On May 17, 2017
Surendra Dhulappa Mane Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal through jail. Advocate Ms. Sindha Shreedharan had been appointed to espouse the case of the appellant. The appeal is old. The appointed Advocate is not present and hence, this Court has requested Advocate Mr. Satyavrat Joshi to go through the records and espouse the case of the appellant. He has graciously accepted. Hence, this Court proceeds to hear the appeal.

(2.) The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.3,000.00 in default R.I. for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default further R.I. for six months by II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions case No.32 of 1995 vide judgment and order dated 5.11995. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :-

(3.) PW-1 Bharat Bagade happens to be the neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. He has deposed before the Court that the accused was addicted to alcohol and that was the cause of quarrel between the couple. That PW-1 had intervened in their quarrels. He has further deposed that on 25.12.1994, it was Sunday. He had heard cries from the house of the accused. He saw the wife of the accused-appellant in flames. The accused was also present. PW-1 attempted to save her. The accused had extinguished flames by covering her with a quilt. At that time, the relatives were also present. He has specifically deposed that he along with the accused and relatives of Vimal had taken her inside the house. Upon arrival by the parents, an Ambulance was called and Vimal was taken to the hospital. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the accused had received burn injuries in the course of attempting to save his wife. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he was never present at the time when there were quarrels between the deceased and the accused.