1. The appellant herein was an accused in Sessions Case No. 343 of 2010, and who shall be hereinafter referred to as accused, has challenged the judgment dated 10th March, 2011 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune has convicted him for the offence under Section 304(ii) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:

The accused was married to Rohini Nayar and they were blessed with a girl child. On 5.10.2010 at about 21.30 hours, the accused came home with a bottle of thums up and liquor and started consuming liquor. When his wife Rohini told him not to consume alcohol, he flung a plate at her. He thereafter banged her head against the wall and threatened to kill her. It is alleged that the accused sprinkled kerosene over her and set her ablaze. The accused thereafter tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water on Rohini and later took her to Jeevandeep hospital. She was referred to YCM hospital and later to Sasoon Hospital. The Police Constable on duty at Sasoon hospital informed Chatursinghi Police Station that a patient with burn injuries was admitted in Sasoon Hospital. PI Shivaji Jawale came to the hospital and upon ascertaining that Rohini was in a fit condition to give a statement, he recorded her statement and registered crime no.623 of 2010 for the offences under Section 307, 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

3. PW7 Shivaji Jawale, PI, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized the clothes of the deceased as well as the other incriminating material found at the place of the incident. He recorded the statements of the parents of Rohini and other witnesses. The accused came to be arrested on 6.2.2010. Said Rohini expired on 11.2.2010 and as such the offence which was initially registered under Section 307 IPC was converted to Section 302 of IPC.

4. The postmortem over the body of Rohini was conducted by PW6 Dr. Mahesh Tengale. He opined that the death of Rohini was due to shock as a result of burn injuries. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Section 302, 408A and 596 of IPC. The case being Sessions triable, was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Upon committal of the case, charge was framed and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case examined 7 witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused had filed a written statement wherein he had claimed that the Nylon saree of Rohini had caught fire while she was trying to remove the milk vessel from the stove. He had stated that he had extinguished the fire and brought her to Jeevndeep Hospital. He has stated that he had married Rohini against the wishes of her parents and that the parents of Rohini were not in talking terms with them. He has stated that the parents of Rohini came to Sasoon Hospital and that the police had prepared a false dying declaration in connivance with the parents of Rohini.

6. Upon appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune held that the prosecution had proved that the accused had threatened to cause death of Rohini and poured pps 4 of kerosene on her and set her on fire. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, held that the evidence on record clearly indicated that the accused had tried to put off the flames and in the process he too had sustained injuries. The accused had himself taken Rohini to the hospital. The learned trial Judge held that the said conduct of the accused reveals that the accused did not have an intention to cause death of Rohini. In the light of the said findings, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 of IPC and held him guilty of offence under Section 304(ii) and 506 of IPC and sentenced him as sta