BABI JANU FALE Vs. STATE THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 26.06.2006 of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa convicting the appellant U/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant is also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- to be paid as compensation to the elder daughter Geetanjali Fale. The prosecution case which has been accepted by the Sessions Court is that on 12.1.2005 at about 21.45 hours the accused murdered his wife by burning her. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses including Doctors.

(2.) THE scene of the crime is the hut of the accused where he was living with the deceased. The time at which the offence was committed is 21.45 hours There appear to be no eye-witnesses to the incident. The conviction is mainly based on 2 dying declarations out of the 10 that have come on record i.e. the dying declarations made to P.W.No.8 i.e. Dr. Shyam Raghunath Kankonkar who examined the deceased and P.W.No.9 i.e. Special Judicial Magistrate Shekhar Usgaonkar.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that no intention to murder or mens rea can be attributed to the accused even though he may be taken to have had knowledge that the burns could result into the death of the deceased. The learned Counsel relied on the fact that the deceased stated in her dying declaration that she had poured kerosene on herself and there was some variance between the statements made by her in this regard. It is not possible to accept this contention since any variance in this regard would not have direct bearing on the mens rea particularly since the deceased has been consistent in stating that the accused set her ablaze by using an oil lamp. There is no evidence before us to show that his state of intoxication was as such as to prevent him from understanding the consequences of his action. It is important to note that the appellant not only did not take any steps to have deceased treated in the hospital on the contrary did not accompany the deceased in the hospital. This conduct is a strong pointer against any possibility of innocence.