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

2013 Supreme(Bom) 2044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
K.U.CHANDIWAL & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
Dnyaneshwar
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer
Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2012
Decided On : 09-10-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate.
For the Respondent: B.V. Wagh, A.P.P.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Conviction for offence of abetment of suicide. - In absence of any material on record to show that accused actively instigated or assisted victim to commit suicide, conviction of accused under Section 306, IPC, set aside. - In the matter of Suvarnasingh Tiratsingh Dhanjal v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 Cri LJ 18 : 2006 All MR (Cri) 58, it was the case of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 and there was charge under Section 498-A of IPC also. The Hon’ble Court discussed the evidence of that matter and found that even though the prosecution had proved the case of cruelty and harassment as contemplated under Section 498-A, still there was nothing to justify more active role played by accused No. 1 of instigation to commit suicide..

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - Conviction under. - Since conduct of accused, telling his wife that he not likes her or abusing or beating her all times amounts to cruelty hence accused rightly convicted under Section 498-A of IPC. - The evidence inspiring confidence, is of PW 2, that the victim during the course of incident, told him that on account of trouble from husband she burned herself. This evidence read with Exhibit 63, which has already been discussed, shows that there was indeed some conduct of accused, which was agitating the victim. If exhibit 63 is kept in view, the conduct of the accused all the time telling her that he does not like her or abusing or beating her, must be treated to be "cruelty" under Section 498-A of IPC. Although such conduct may fall short for abetment to commit suicide, but it can be sufficient conduct which would amount to cruelty of such a nature that the wife may cause grave injury to herself. Relying on the evidence discussed, offence under Section 498-A of IPC must be held to be proved and conviction on that count needs to be maintained.

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration in murder case. - Since dying declaration of deceased wife, recorded by Naib Tahsildar, implicating accused persons, not inspiring confidence hence conviction of accused persons for offence of murder, cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

A.I.S. Cheema, J.

1. Appellant original accused No.1 (hereinafter referred as "accused") has been prosecuted in Sessions Case No.88 of 2010, held before Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna and he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short "I.P.C.") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine Rs.5000/(Rupees Five Thousand), & in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; under Section 498A of I.P.C. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees One Thousand), & in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. His brother Ramprasad Shivdas Lomte and sisterinlaw Arunabai Ramprasad Lomte (original accused Nos. 2 and 3) were acquitted.

2. The conviction has been imposed for committing murder of wife by accused Dnyaneshwar, namely, Vijaymala (hereinafter referred as "victim") by burning her on 18th October, 2007 and for having had subjected her to cruelty, as covered under Section 498A of I.P.C.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated to be as under:

About six months before incident of 18th October, 2007, accused Dnyaneshwar was married to the victim. She went to stay at the native place at Uswad and soon with the accused started residing at Aurangabad. Just before the incident the couple had come back and was residing at the home at Uswad. Accused No.2 Ramprasad and accused No.3 Arunabai were residing separate from the couple and even landed property had been partitioned. The accused, in the short period of matrimonial life, subjected the victim to cruelty and was telling her that he does not like her. He was also suspecting her character. He had demanded Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to purchase a vehicle and had also beaten her at times.

On the day of incident, accused poured kerosene on the person of victim, while accused No.2 Ramprasad set her on fire and accused No.3 Arunabai closed the door of the house. The victim was taken to Rural Hospital, Mantha and at the time of admission, history of the incident was given, of accidental burns due to fall of chimney i.e. kerosene lamp. Due to severe burn injuries, the victim was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jalna on the same day. There, one A.S.I. Chandanse, recorded statement of the victim and she gave statement of burning herself due to quarrel between the couple. Relatives of the victim, her cousin brother PW1 Ramesh Gore, brother PW3 Munjaji Gore and mother PW6 Ahilyabai, reached the hospital. Victim told them about the accused persons causing burn injuries to her. On 20th October, 2007, PW9, Naib Tahsildar, Tulshiram Gaikwad, recorded dying declaration of the victim, wherein she blamed the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for causing burn injuries to her. The dying declaration was sent from Jalna to Police Station, Mantha and on 21st October 2007, at 3.40 p.m., F.I.R. No.120 of 2007 was registered, under Section 307, 498A read with 34 of I.P.C. Vijaymana (victim) passed away in the morning of 23rd October, 2007 at 5.30 a.m. Inquest panchnama was drawn on 24th October, 2007 and postmortem was conducted at the Civil Hospital, Jalna.

Thereafter PW10 P.I. Vikas Nikkam from Police Station, Mantha, conducted spot panchnama at about 2.00 p.m. and collected incriminating articles like (a) aluminium "ketli" i.e. container of 2 litres capacity smelling of kerosene, (b) small "chimney" i.e. lamp smelling of kerosene, (c) match box and (d) kerosene mixed and plain mud.

Statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused came to be arrested on 25th October 2007. On 6th November 2007, the articles collected from the spot, were sent to Chemical Analyzer through PW8, Police Constable, Ramdas. Chargesheet was filed. Trial was held and the accused No.1 got convicted.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction, present Appeal has been filed, raising various grounds. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant-accused as well as the le


















































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top