The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable evidence and the need to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as well as the relevance of previous court decisions in evaluating witness testimonies.

1. The appellant seeks to assail judgment and order dated 05.12.2002 in Sessions Trial 458/1997 delivered by the 7th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by and under which, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) is convicted of offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-and is further convicted for offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.

2. Heard Shri C.R. Thakur, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Shri A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. The gist of the prosecution case, as is unfolded during the course of the trial, is thus: The marriage of deceased Aruna was solemnized with the accused in the year 1997.

4. Concededly, Aruna suffered burn injuries and expired while undergoing treatment at Medical College Hospital, Nagpur on 10.05.1997 at 11:00 p.m.

5. The dying declaration could not be recorded since the Medical Officer declared that Aruna was not in a position to give a statement.

6. Initially, inquiry under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was initiated as the death was treated as accidental. However, Laxman Ramu Dhurve, the father of the deceased Aruna lodged a report on 15.05.1997 alleging that Aruna committed suicide since she was tortured by the accused. On the basis of the said report, offence under section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. However, the accused was charge-sheeted under section 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katol who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, framed charge under section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exh.13, the accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence, as is obvious from the trend of the cross-examination and the statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication.

8. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses including P.W.1 and P.W.5 who are the mother and father respectively of the deceased Aruna, P.W.2 Sou. Kamalabai Varthe and P.W.3 Sou. Anjana Perteki the sisters of the deceased Aruna and P.W.8 Jagannath Dhurve who is the brother of the deceased Aruna. None of the members of the family of the deceased Aruna supported the prosecution and in view of a permission sought by the learned A.P.P. to put questions under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act in the nature of cross-examination, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to permit the cross-examination of the said witnesses by the learned A.P.P. However, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to assist the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses who are related to Aruna have in unison stated that Aruna was treated well in the matrimonial home.

9. P.W.4 Sou. Panchfulla Nasre, who is an independent witness and a neighbour of the accused, also did not support the prosecution and nothing is elicited in her cross-examination to take the case of the prosecution any further. P.W.6 Chandu Kelzerkar who was then ASI attached to Police Station Katol has deposed that since according to the Medical Officer Aruna was unconscious and was not in a position to give statement, her dying declaration could not be recorded. P.W.7 Pralhad Madke who is also a neighbour of the accused, is a material witness from the perspective of the prosecution. The conviction, substantially if not entirely, rests on the evidence of two child witnesses Shraddha and Sweta who are examined as P.W.12 and P.W.13 respectively. The case of the prosecution is that the child witness Sweta came running to P.W.7 Pralhad Madke and disclosed that the accused had poured kerosene on the person of the deceased Aruna. H