NALU SANJAY DARNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/Accused has challenged the judgment dated 18-09-1996 delivered by the Additional Sessions judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 175/1995, holding her guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in default.

(2.) The prosecution alleges that the husband of present appellant namely - Sanjay a victim of alleged murder was working as domestic servant with one Nanaji Parve and was taking care of his catties and was also residing in a part of his house separated by a temporary partition. Marriage of appellant with deceased sanjay was performed on 30-05-1991. After some time they could not cohabit together. After sanjay started working with Nanaji Parve, sanjay and Nanaji went to bring her to her matrimonial house and just 8 or 9 days prior to the incident she came to Selsura and started cohabiting with Sanjay. On 18-06-1995 after taking food and chitchatting with wife of Nanaji, the couple went to sleep. In the early hours of morning the appellant poured kerosene on sanjay, who was sleeping on cot and set him on fire, came out of house and latched/closed the door from outside. She was then sitting or waiting in the bathroom outside the house. Landlady - Zingubai (P. W. 6) and her son Raju @ Rajendra (P. W. 5) were sleeping in the room adjacent to partition and flames awoke rajendra, who in turn told his mother about it. Zingubai and Rajendra came out, but could not open the door of the house of Sanjay and then called neighnour by name Nanibai and they opened the door by giving push. In the meanwhile villagers had also gathered there. They found Sanjay in naked condition extinguishing fire from his person. They gave lungi to him. At that time appellant was waiting near bathroom outside the door of her house. Then neighbours and the appellant took Sanjay to hospital at Wardha. On enquiry by witnesses sanjay told that he was set on fire by the appellant. Police recorded his dying declaration and then Executive Magistrate also recorded his dying declaration. On the basis of this, offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered. The police prepared spot panchanama and seized various articles. Subsequently on 20-06-1995 Sanjay died. Post mortem was conducted and it was found that the death was due to septicemic shock on account of burn injuries. The offence registered was converted to one under section 302 of indian Penal Code. Police completed the investigation. Appellant was already arrested on 18-06-1995. Chief Judicial Magistrate, wardha by his order dated 28-09-1995 committed the case to the Court of Sessions and it was ultimately transferred to Additional sessions Court. Charge (Exh. 8) was framed for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian penal Code and it was explained to the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial was proceeded further. After recording statement of appellant under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and also after perusal of his Written Statement (Exh. 67), the Additional, Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) In reply the learned Additional public Prosecutor points out that the appellant was staying with the deceased and considering the time of the incidence, burden is upon her to explain the death of the deceased. He further states that she has not explained why door was closed from outside and according to him in these circumstances, oral dying declarations as proved from evidence of Mother of the deceased (PW-1), Brother of deceased (PW-2) and landlady Zingubai (PW-6) as also written dying declarations have been rightly accepted by the court below. He further points out that the spot panchanama also shows the necessary facts and he further states that if burning lamp fell down, a match stick could not have been found on the spot. He also relies upon the evidence of various witnesses in support of his contention and prays that the appellant has committed murder of her own husband, because relations between them were not cordial and present appeal needs to be dismissed.