MANIK BANDU GAWALI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in Sessions Case No. 112 of 1993 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana is the appellant. He along with the second accused was charged for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted the second accused and convicted the first accused-appellant under section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo R. I. for a further period of three months under the second part of section 307, I. P. C. The finding, conviction and sentence are under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) P. W. 1 Saraswati was married to the first accused and in that relationship she begot a son who, on the date of occurrence, was about 3 years old and was residing with her. Accused was residing with P. W. 1 and her family, but 3-4 months before the occurrence he started living away from her along with accused No. 2. On the date of occurrence i. e. on 16-8-1993, according to the prosecution, the first accused along with the second accused came to the house of P. W. 1 in the evening and demanded P. W. 1 to hand over his son. P. W. 1 declined and said that she would hand over him in the next morning. On that both the accused left, but accused No. 1 returned after a short time. According to the prosecution, at that moment there was nobody except P. W. 1 in the house, for her parents had gone to wash bullocks and her sister had gone for washing clothes. Then the first accused poured kerosene from a bottle on P. W. 1 and set on fire and ran away. According to the prosecution, at that time second accused was seen in the nearby bush. P. W. 1 raised alarm. Hearing the alarm her sister rushed to her and threw water on her. Thereafter she was taken to the hospital where P. W. 2 Dr. Ramteke admitted her, and at the hospital her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Constable Mohan filed complaint before P. W. 3 Chavan, Police Sub-Inspector along with the said statement. On the basis of the same, P. W. 3 registered a crime against the accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 326 and 307 r/w section 34, I. P. C. After completing the investigation P. W. 3 laid charge before the Court. Court framed charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34, I. P. C. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 3. The learned Sessions Judge after adverting to the evidence of these witnesses, sentenced the first accused as indicated above.

(3.) MR. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant, challenged the very finding by the learned Judge maintaining that the prosecution has failed to examine any of the neighbourers or even the sister of P. W. 1 who, according to the prosecution, threw water on her. The learned Counsel maintained that there is no acceptable evidence to show that the accused brought kerosene and poured it on P. W. 1. It was maintained by the learned Counsel that with due regard to the hostile relationship between P. W. 1 and the first accused, uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1 could not have been made the basis for conviction. The learned Counsel also maintained that the possibility of her attempting to commit suicide also cannot be excluded.