ADAWAYYA @ SWAMI KUNTAINAWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal at the instance of the convict, who has challenged the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dtd. 23/03/2017 by virtue of which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The respondents State had initiated the proceedings against the convict, who shall hereinafter referred to as the accused and the State for brevity's sake.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution against the accused that on 23/06/2013 between 20.30 hrs. to 20.45 hrs., the accused with the intention of killing his wife had poured diesel on her in a rented room situated near Vetal Temple at Chopdem, Pernem, Goa and thereby caused her grievous injury which resulted in her death on 26/06/2013 while she was undergoing treatment in the Goa Medical College at Bambolim. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed charge against the accused to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The State had examined 16 witnesses to bring forth its case against the accused on the solitary head of charge under Sec. 302 IPC and thereafter the case of the prosecution was put to the accused in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code which he denied taking a specific plea in defence that the deceased was not his wife though she was staying with him and admitted that there used to be frequent quarrels between them. He had accordingly examined himself and another witness in support of his defence plea. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, found favour with the case of the State against the accused and convicted him giving rise to the present appeal assailing the said judgment and seeking its reversal to one of acquittal.

(3.) We have heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate for the accused who submitted at the outset that the case of the State against him was based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, it had to be seen on an examination of the testimony of various witnesses whether the charge could at all be said to have been brought home against the accused. Besides, the accused had himself sustained injuries on his person in the course of assisting the deceased and which was apparent from the evidence of the Doctor, who had examined him. He adverted to the statement of the various witnesses on record including Nagraj to belie the prosecution case that the accused had purchased diesel at the petrol pump to douse the same on the deceased and to set her ablaze. There was otherwise a variance between the case of the prosecution as brought on record through the petrol pump attendant who had stated that the accused had purchased the can of diesel of 35 litres capacity unlike the attachment of the can at the residence which was barely 5 litres in capacity. There were material discrepancies in the case of the prosecution including the non attachment of the shirt of the accused and therefore it was a fit case to acquit the accused. He placed reliance in Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P. [2007 (15) SCC 465], Kanchy Komuramma; Kanchy Ramchander Vs. State of A.P. [1996 SCC (Cri) 31], K. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Public Prosecutor [1976 SCC (Cri) 473], Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406], M. Abbas Vs. State of Kerala [2001 Cri.LJ.3965] and Reena Hazarika [2018 (4) Crimes (SC) 295].