2018 Supreme(Bom) 1038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
Bapu (Nandu) Prabhu Koli @ Raut – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2013
Decided On : 23-07-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Avishar S. Shelke Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 174 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 and 498A - Evidence Act,1872 - Section 106 – Appeal against conviction - Appeal against acquittal - Deceased and accused belong to labour class- Both were doing labour work for daily wages on a brick kiln – They are having children - One is owner of brick kiln which is about km away from village - Said appears to have made arrangements for resident of labourers near kiln- He contacted on duty and requested him to show patient and to accompany with him - They both went to burns ward - Wife of accused was admitted re- Police recorded a statement of deceased in a printed proforma used for recording of a dying declaration- He hand over statement to police station He arrested accused and collected 174 Cr.P.C inquiry papers seized was sent to CA examination - In due course he received CA-report During investigation he contacted persons supposed to be acquainted with facts of case to record ir statements - He finally submitted a charge-sheet against accused in Court of J-M.F.C- Dying declaration itself disclosed that accused subjected deceased being his wife to cruelty and beat her upon suspecting her character and finally poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze - In due course learned J.M.F.C - Committed case to Court of Sessions – Held, prosecution has not examined any single witness to show that at time of incident accused was present in house so as to shift burden of proof on appellant accused as per Section 106 of Evidence Ac t- Court have perused Judgment and order passed by trial Court - Reasons recorded by trial Court are very cryptic- trial Court has not appreciated entire evidence brought on record in its proper perspective and reached to a wrong conclusion - Findings recorded by trial Court are not in consonance with evidence brought on record - Trial Court has acquitted accused from offence punishable under Section 498-A of COURT-P- Code- Since Appellant is acquitted from offence punishable under Section 498A of Court Code motive as per prosecution case for commission of alleged offence by Appellant punishable under Section 302 of Court Code is not at all established – Order acccordingly
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 26th July, 2013, passed by the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.52 of 2012, thereby convicting the accused/Appellant Bapu (Nandu) Prabhu Koli @ Raut for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code") and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a year.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:
(A) Deceased Varsha Bapu Koli was wife of the accused who died on 4th February, 2012. Varsha died due to burn injuries in a civil hospital, Osmanabad. She sustained burn injuries to the extent of 88%, on 24th January, 2012 at 9.30 p.m.
(B) The deceased and accused belong to labour class. Both were doing labour work for daily wages, on a brick kiln. They are having children. One Manoj Ghogare is owner of the brick kiln, which is about 1 K.M. away from Kakramba village. Said Manoj Ghogre appears to have made arrangements for resident of the labourers near the kiln. About 30 hutment like structures of bricks, covered with tins having open Varanda in front of each room, have been provided to the workers for their residence. In a third room from South side, accused and his wife along with children, were residing and other labours were residing in other rooms. This residential place of the deceased is a place of incident.
(C) The place of incident at Kakramba is in Tuljapur police station area. On 24th January, 2012 a lady patient was taken to civil hospital, Tuljapur, for treatment of burn injuries. Immediately, she was referred to civil hospital, Osmanabad. Police officer of Tuljapur police station made a request to Osmanabad (City) police station for recording statement of the patient. Police Naik on duty at the police chowki of civil hospital, Osmanabad was instructed to record the statement of the patient, so admitted in civil hospital, Osmanabad.
(D) Police Naik Fulari (PW3) was on duty in the police chowki in civil hospital, Osmanabad. He contacted Dr. Sable (PW4), on duty and requested him to show the patient and to accompany with him. They both went to burns ward. The wife of the accused was admitted there. On 25th January, 2012, between 2.00 a.m. to 2.30 a.m., Police Naik Fulari recorded a statement of the deceased in a printed proforma used for recording of a dying declaration. He handed over statement to Osmanabad (City) police station. Osmanabad City police station transmitted the same to police station, Tuljapur.
(E) The patient died on 4th February, 2012. Osmanabad city police conducted usual A.D. enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."). An inquest panchnama (Exhibit-20) prepared and postmortem (Exhibit-27) conducted. The dying declaration was sent to Tuljapur police station, disclosing the commission of cognizable offences, therefore police took cognizance to register crime against accused. A.P.I. Sable (PW-6) investigated into the offences.
(F) A.P.I. Sable conducted the spot panchnama (Exhibit15). He arrested the accused and collected 174 Cr.P.C. inquiry papers. Muddemal seized was sent to C.A. examination. In due course he received C.A. report. During investigation, he contacted the persons supposed to be acquainted with the facts of the case to record their statements. He finally submitted a charge-sheet against the accused in the Court of J.M.F.C., Tuljapur. Dying declaration itself disclosed that, accused subjected the deceased, being his wife, to cruelty and beat her upon suspecting her character and finally on 24th January, 2012, at 9.00 p.m. poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. In due course, learned J.M.F.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
(G) A charge was framed against the accused. At the time of framing of charge, substance of accusation was read over and explained to the acc