The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused had the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, but did not have the intention to kill, leading to the alteration of the conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT - V.M. KANADE, J.:---The appellant was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his wife. The Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, convicted the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant/accused used to live alongwith his wife Kaushalyabai, two sons viz. Ravindra and Rajendra in a hut constructed on a plot allotted by the Government in Beghar Wasti, outside village Maregaon, in Taluka Mul. He was working as a labourer alongwith one Prakash Wakulkar and one Anil. On 13-3-1996, the accused had taken a hand loan of Rs. 25/- from Prakash Wakulkar as he had lost a bet and he promised to pay the said amount of Rs. 25/- to Prakash after returning to his house at Maregaon. When he went home along with Prakash and Anil, at that time, his wife was cooking. He asked his wife to pay an amount of Rs. 25/- to Prakash. His wife told him to wait for some time as the vegetables which she was cooking, were on the stove. After the frying of the vegetable was over, within a few minutes, the wife of the accused paid the amount to Prakash. Prakash and Anil went away. After the two had left, the accused asked his wife as to why she had not made the payment immediately and why she had taken so much time. The accused was, therefore, annoyed on account of the delay and he tried to assault his wife. However, he was caught by his two sons who were present in the house and thereafter the accused left the house and went away for drinking liquor. At about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. the accused returned back to his house and at that time his wife was making preparation for sleeping and was spreading beddings on cots in the hut. Again the accused rushed to beat his wife. However, his elder son Ravindra obstructed him and thereafter the accused took a burning kerosene lamp and threw it in the direction of his wife. The kerosene lamp fell on his wife and she caught fire and she suffered burn injuries. The sons of the accused shouted for help and the accused ran away. His sons extinguished fire by pouring water on their mother. In the meantime some of the neighbours caught hold of the accused who was running away and brought the accused to the house. The wife of the accused was taken to the Police Station and a complaint was lodged being Crime No. 33/96 under section 307 read with section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and she was referred to the Medical Officer where her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, she was referred to the General Hospital, Chandrapur. She succumbed to the injuries after 12 days and died on 24-3-1996 at 9.30 p.m. in the General Hospital, Chandrapur. Thereafter the offence was changed from sections 307 to 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the police recorded the spot panchanama, seized various articles which were found on the spot and a Regular Criminal Case No. 71/96 was registered. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The charge was framed by the trial Court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said change. The trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and also the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has taken us through the depositions recorded by the Sessions Court and also dying declaration and other evidence on record. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court.

3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the prosecution had not proved that the accused had committed offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the accused neither had an intention of causing the death of the deceased nor had a knowledge and intention to cause any bodily injury to the deceased. He submitted that the kero

Click Here to Read the rest of this document