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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 2060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.P. Dharmadhikari, A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Janardhan Barku Solanke - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2015
Decided On : 15-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri D.V. Chauhan, Counsel.
For the Respondent: Shri R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part I-Murder or culpable homicide- Proof.-It was alleged that accused/husband demanded money from his wife for consuming alcohol and over this issue there was quarrel between wife and husband. Where accused- appellant/husband poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. There it was regarded as culpable homicide and his conviction was changed from under section to under Section 304, Part I of IPC.

       After setting his wife ablaze, the appellant-accused was standing outside his house. He did not run away and also did not proceed to hospital with his wife. His conduct shows that he was unconcerned about the health of his wife. He used to beg food even by changing looks and appears to be an addict. After consuming alcohol on bazar day, he wanted his wife to give him more money. This resulted in quarrel and during that quarrel, the appellant-accused poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. It appears that tempers were running high and that may have added fuel to fire, still it cannot be accepted that the appellant did not intend to kill his wife. His concern towards her health would have been apparent in his subsequent conduct, if he wanted her not to die. It appears that in quarrel and heat of passion, the appellant-accused took a drastic step. That he should have been convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

       Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32-Dying declaration-Reliability of.-In instant case, since dying declaration was corroborated by other evidence, and clearly implicated accused person, dying declaration was held to be admissible and sufficient to convict the accused.

       PW 4 doctor has supported PW 3 Naib Tahsildar and proved fitness certificate given by him at Exhibits-25 and 27. He has denied that deceased was unable to speak though she had sustained 80% burn injuries. He has further stated that he put time on certificates as per his wrist watch. The evidence of both these witnesses is convincing and supports narration by deceased at Exhibit-26. The narration is on same lines as deposed by PW 5, son `V` of deceased, and also PW 1, sister of deceased, `S`. This dying declaration has been recorded at about 9:00 in the evening/night on 13.3.2012. Not mentioning date, on which recording of statement came to an end or time thereof and leaving space prescribed for it in printed proforma blank, is not sufficient to vitiate this dying declaration.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

This criminal appeal, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenges judgment and order dated 26.11.2014, delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, convicting appellant/husband Janardhan Barku Solanke under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife by setting her ablaze on 13.3.2012. Victim Ratnabai expired on 18.3.2012.

2. We have heard learned counsel Shri D.V. Chauhan appointed for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri R.S. Nayak for the respondent/State.

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is, the appellant-accused is drunkard and beggar who used to ill-treat his wife Ratnabai for extracting money to consume liquor. On 13.3.2012, both of them went to Asalgaon Bazar and returned back at about 5:30 p.m.. The appellant-accused then demanded money and Ratnabai paid him Rs. 50/-, which he spent on liquor. She refused to give him more money. The appellant-accused quarreled with her, poured kerosene on her person, and set her on fire. The couple had two sons viz. Rajesh and Vijay and a married daughter Bali who then resided at Nasik. At the time of incident, PW5 son Vijay was present in the house.

4. The dyeing declaration of deceased Ratnabai has been recorded vide Exhibit-26 on 13.3.2012 itself at about 9:00 p.m. by PW3 Executive Magistrate Vasant Baban Dabhade in the presence of PW4 Doctor Vinayak Jaidev Dhurjad. In her dyeing declaration, she has stated that her husband has attempted to burn her and her hand was fractured by him. They have returned from Asalgaon bazaar. Her husband is drunkard and troublesome. She had given him money to drink liquor still her husband Janardhan poured kerosene on her person and burnt her. Earlier also, he attempted assaulting her with knife and made several efforts to kill her. She stated that he made full attempt to burn her. It is apparent that effort was to kill her.

5. PW5 son Vijay was seventeen years old on 24.6.2014 when his deposition was recorded by the Trial Court. He was, thus, fifteen years old at the time of incident in question. The gist of his deposition is, on the date of incident, his mother and father came from Asalgaon bazaar. He has stated that his father was a beggar. He demanded money from Ratnabai for consuming liquor and quarreled with her. This was at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m.. His mother had already paid Rs. 50/- to his father and he was demanding more amount. The father quarreled with his mother since his mother refused to give his father more amount. His father poured kerosene on his mother and set her ablaze. He was standing there and raised shouts. He called PW6, his neighbour, Ajabrao Bajirao Sonanke. Ajabrao came and extinguished his mother. He then rushed to the house of Dharma Pandurang and requested him to bring his Maruti Omni Van in which his mother was then carried to hospital. After setting his mother ablaze, his father was standing outside the house. He has stated that as his father was over-drunk, his mother was scolding him. He denied that his mother was fed up and, therefore, tried to kill herself by pouring kerosene on her person. His father, though not in a position to stand and maintain his balance, tried to prevent the same and in this process hands of his father got stained with kerosene. He denied that his mother herself ignited match stick and set fire. He denied that his father tried to extinguish his mother and sustained burn injuries. He denied that his father was admitted in hospital. His evidence also shows that his maternal aunts, sisters of deceased Ratnabai, Sangita Suresh Solanke and Anita also resided in neighbourhood and they came to hospital with him.

6. The report is lodged by PW1 Sangita, sister of Ratnabai. She heard shouts of PW5 Vijay at 5:30 p.m. and went to house of deceased Ratnabai. Her sister Anita, who resided beyond two to three houses from her house, also came there. Deceased Ratnabai was burning and























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