SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 1730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)

NARESH H. PATIL & P.R. BORKAR, JJ.
Shivaji s/o. Dattatraya Date — Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2006
Decided on : 19-12-2007

Advocates appeared
Mr. S.J. Salunke (appointed), Advocate for the appellant
Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent State

Headnote:Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302-Conviction and sentence under-Death of wife-Accused, an addict of liquor-Charged of setting his wife ablaze-His drunkenness, abusing wife, suspecting her chastity a usual feature-Possibility of her having set herself on fire not ruled out-People gathered on spot, told her brother that deceased set herself on fire out of anger-Landlord deposed that accused was outside and room was locked from inside when he went on spot hearing cries of deceased-Dying declaration recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate having thick relations with brother of deceased-Possibility of suicide not ruled out-Accused entitled to benefit of doubt-Conviction and sentence of accused set aside-Accused acquitted.-Here we may also refer to the motive stated. So far as the appellant is concerned his drunkenness, abusing his wife and suspecting chastity of wife had been usual feature. Nothing new happened on the day of incident. On the other hand, for Meenakshi besides abuses in drunkenness and usual allegations of unchastity, it is stated in Exh. 33 that accused had gone to such a low level as to say that Meenakashi had illicit relations with their son Atul. So in the circumstances, it is possible that when Atul had gone to his friend’s house and her husband had gone to answer nature’s call outside. Meenakshi might have set herself on fire and when felt agonies of fire raised shouts. People then gathered and extinguished the fire. So possibility of defence being true cannot be said to be remote.

       In this case, there is no eye-witness. Conviction is based on dying declarations and circumstantial evidence. The dying declarations are not free from doubt. Perhaps they may be product of tutoring, prompting or imagination and the circumstances proved did not necessarily rule out possibility of the theory of suicide, since the circumstances did not exclude hypothesis of suicide. The appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.

Judgment

P.R. BORKAR, JJ.


Appellant -Shivaji s/o. Dattatraya Date preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2005 decided on 09.12.2005 whereby he was convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") for committing murder of his wife Meenakshi and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. It is case of the prosecution that the appellant and deceased Meenakshi married 17-18 years ago. They were blessed with two children son-Atul (P.W.3), daughter-Jyoti. Jyoti was residing with her maternal uncle P.W.4-Prakash Raghunath Waval for her education. P.W.3-Atul was residing with his parents. The appellant is a labourer. Deceased Meenakshi was a beedi worker. Appellant-Shivaji used to come home in intoxicated condition. He was addicted to liquor. He used to beat his wife in intoxicated condition. He was also suspecting her character. The appellant, deceased Meenakshi and P.W.3-Atul were residing in one of the rooms owned by P.W.2-Sunil Narayan Deshmukh, who owned Deshmukh-Wada in Patil Galli of Bhingar area of Ahmednagar city. The rented premises in which the appellant, deceased Meenakshi and their son Atul were residing was consisted of one room.

3. On 16.01.2005 at about 10.30 p.m. the appellant came in drunken condition. He had brought mutton. He abused deceased Meenakshi and also said that she had illicit relations with others. At the same time he was saying that she should take meals with him. Deceased Meenakshi told him that it was her fasting day and she would not take meals. After meals P.W.3-Atul went to his friend’s house for sleeping. Thereafter, the appellant started abusing deceased Meenakshi. The appellant also said that she was not behaving properly and she would be killed by him by setting her on fire. He poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. Deceased Meenakshi raised shouts. At that time P.W.2-Sunil Deshmukh and other neighbours came. They poured water and extinguished the fire.

4. Thereafter, P.W.2-Sunil Deshmukh went and brought brother of Meenakshi, by name, P.W.4-Prakash Waval. Deceased Meenakshi was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar and she was admitted. Doctor gave intimation about admitting deceased Meenakshi with burn injuries in the Hospital to Bhingar Police Station. P.W.8-Police Head Constable Meghraj Shivrai Dhanlagade was on night duty. He received the message. He went to Civil Hospital. P.W.5-Dr. Ashok Ghule told him that the patient was not in a position to give statement and therefore P.W.8-Head Constable Dhanlagade went back to the Police Station. On 17.01.2005 at about 11.00 a.m. he again went to Civil Hospital. He saw condition of the patient and approached P.W.6-Dr. Santosh Khandekar, who was on duty. P.W.6-Dr. Khandekar examined the patient and told P.W.8-Head Constable Dhanlagade that deceased Meenakshi was in a position to give statement. Accordingly, P.W.8-Head Constable Dhanlagade recorded dying declaration, which is at Exh.45. The Doctor made endorsement on the dying declaration. Thereafter, at about 12=30 noon, P.W.7-Special Judicial Magistrate Jayant Joshi also came to the hospital and contacted P.W.6-Dr. Khandekar and also recorded statement of deceased Meenakshi, which is proved at Exh.39. Thus, two dyeing declarations were recorded. It is also prosecution case that there was extra-judicial dying declaration before P.W.3-Atul, who is the son of deceased and accused-appellant, and P.W.4-Prakash, the brother of deceased Meenakshi. P.W.8-Head Constable Dhanlagade after recording dying declarations of deceased went to the spot of incident and drew panchanama. Thereafter, dying declaration before him was treated as FIR and crime was registered. The investigation was taken over by P.W.9-P.S.I. Pathan, who recorded statemen











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top