Uttam Anna Lande vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NITIN W. SAMBRE, R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
Uttam Anna Lande – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2014
Decided On : 23-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abhishek Avachat.
For the Respondent: G.P. Mulekar.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 307, 304 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374, 313 – Offence Punishable – First Information Report – Punishment for murder – Attempt to murder – Appeals from convictions – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whether declaration was voluntary and true – Held, Court have already concluded that dying declaration of deceased recorded is truthful and voluntary and that she was in a sound condition to give a valid statement – Learned counsel for Appellant was not in a position to show any infirmity in this dying declaration, either in form of procedure adopted or any circumstance leading that it was not voluntary or was given under influence – Significantly, Appellant has not come with any version that he tried to rescue his wife from burning – Again, his act of setting deceased ablaze and not extinguishing fire would speak entirely against him – Therefore, in our overall view of the matter, Court are not convinced with case of defence that accused suffered from accidental burn injuries, and instant case is not one of homicidal death – Trial Court has discussed entire evidence in detail and, in our opinion, has reached right conclusion that prosecution has been able to establish case against accused beyond a reasonable doubt – Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.N. LADDHA, J.

1. By this Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment dated 15th September 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 556 of 2010, whereby the Appellant is convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with payment of the fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

(i) Accused/Appellant Uttam Lande was residing at village Takve Budruk along with his wife Sangita and two sons, namely, Balaji and Dyneshwar. The accused was addicted to liquor. After consuming liquor, he used to threaten his wife that he would not keep her alive.

(ii) On 29.04.2010 at about 6:00 am, accused Uttam consumed liquor and insisted his wife Sangita not go to work. On refusal, the accused got infuriated and raked up a quarrel, stating that he would see how she could go for work. He then poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Sangita began shouting; hearing her screams, the neighbours rushed to her rescue and extinguished the fire. She suffered burn injuries on her face, chest, abdomen and thighs. She was immediately taken to Dr. Dahiphale’s clinic in the same village. On his advice, she was shifted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune. As it was a case of burning, the Police were informed.

(iii) Accordingly, Police Head Constable Shashikant Waghule visited the hospital and consulted Medical Officer Dr. Raghvendra Chalikwar to record the statement of Sangita. Upon examination of Sangita, Dr. Chalikwar found her in a fit condition to give a statement. Accordingly, on 29.04.2010 at about 4:30 p.m. PHC Mr. Waghule, in the presence of Dr. Chalikwar, recorded her statement wherein she alleged that her husband/accused poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. Her statement was then forwarded to Vadgaon Maval Police Station for further action. Based on this, an offence bearing C.R. No. 74 of 2010 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused. Panchnama of the scene of occurrence came to be drawn. Incriminating articles found thereat were seized. Seized articles were sent to the forensic science laboratory for analysis. The witnesses were interrogated, and their statements were recorded.

(iv) On 03.05.2010, the brother of Sangita shifted her to Pawana Hospital for further medical treatment. However, on 06.05.2010, Sangita succumbed to the burn injuries and, therefore, the offence was converted to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was held. The autopsy examination of the deceased was conducted. Police procured postmortem notes and the report from the forensic science laboratory. As the investigation revealed the complicity of the accused in the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, a charge sheet came to be lodged against him.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and tendered a number of documents. The evidence of the prosecution can be conveniently classified into three parts. Firstly, the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased, which was sought to be proved through the testimony of PHC Shashikant Waghule (PW-1) and Dr. Raghvendra Chalikwar (PW-2). Secondly, the medical evidence formed by the testimony of Dr. Raghvendra Chalikwar (PW-2), Dr. Madhav Waghmare (PW-4) and Dr. Ashwin Masane (PW-5), and the documents came to be proved in their evidence. Thirdly, circumstantial evidence in the nature of the Scene of Occurrence Panchnama and Chemical Analyzer’s Report. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the entire incriminating ev