Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Kedar Lalkha Tadvi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.120 Of 2016
Decided On : 04-07-2023
For the Appellant : Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.V. Deshmukh.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to reduce the sentence based on the circumstances of the case, as provided for in Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Section 307 - Indian Penal Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for committing an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but reduced the sentence to time already served.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire, causing 40% burn injuries. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the act was a reaction to disputes with his wife and that there was reconciliation between them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence supported the prosecution's case, indicating the appellant's intention to kill his wife. The court also considered the appellant's plea for reduction of sentence and decided to reduce the sentence to time already served.
Issues: The issues included the appellant's intent in committing the act, the reconciliation between the appellant and his wife, and the appropriate sentence for the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence proved the appellant's intention to commit murder, and exercised discretion to reduce the sentence to time already served based on the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to time already served. The appellant was set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
(Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.29 of 2013.
2. The prosecution story in short is that injured Mahemuda is the wife of appellant – accused. Informant got married to accused about 17 to 18 years prior to FIR dated 12.03.2013. They have daughter aged 16 and two sons aged 14 and 12 respectively. All the children used to stay with the mother of Mahemuda since their childhood for education. Mahemuda used to go to her parent’s house to meet children and sometimes she used to be in the matrimonial home along with husband at Bidgaon, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. Since about 4 to 5 months prior to the FIR, she was at Bidgaon. Accused was not doing any work to earn, rather he used to abuse the informant under the influence of liquor and used to say that she should go somewhere and not to reside with him. It is the further prosecution story that around 4.30 p.m. on 11.03.2013, informant was washing Dhoti, which she had used for drying papad. She was washing the same in bathroom in her house, at that time, accused went near her and told that she should give him something to eat. She accordingly gave Udit Dal and Sabji and again went to bathroom to wash the cloth. She was sitting while washing the cloth, at that time, accused took out a glass bottle from his pocket and poured it on her person. She got the smell of kerosene and asked husband as to why he has poured kerosene, at that time, the husband ignited matchstick and threw it on her. Her saree caught fire and she sustained burn injuries to left hand, waist, stomach, backside, thighs. She started shouting and poured the water, which was in the bucket, on herself. The fire got extinguished and prior to that after throwing the burning matchstick on her person, the accused had ran away. The neighbouring persons gathered and the ladies gave her clothes to change. She went to police station in a rickshaw. She was then referred to Government Hospital, Adawad, where she was given primary treatment. She called her father there and then along with him, she went to the hospital of Dr. Warke, where she has taken the treatment. While she was admitted with Dr. Warke’s Hospital, her statement was recorded. On the basis of the said statement, FIR came to be registered.
3. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused came to be arrested. Panchanama of the clothes and seizure of clothes was executed. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. After collecting the medical evidence and completing the investigation; charge-sheet was filed.
4. After the committal of the case, charge was framed against the accused and trial was conducted. Prosecution has examined in all six witnesses and after hearing both sides and perusing the evidence, the learned Trial Judge has held the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. He has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(II) of Indian Penal Code.
5. It will not be out of place to mention here that the appeal was preferred through Advocate Mr. Nagori, however, this Court had received letter of the accused on 02.10.2017 from jail stating that he is unable to pay the fees of the Advocate and, therefore, the Advocate should be changed and he be given legal aid. It appears that the office had not placed the said letter immediately, but learned Advocate Mr. Nagori was remaining absent and the fact was noted by this Court on 15.02.2023 and it was also informed that learned Advocate Mr. Nagori has stopped practice from Aurangabad. Hence, we appointed learned Advocate Chaitanya C. Deshpande to represent the cause of appellant.
6. We have heard learned Advocate Mr. Chaitanya C. Des
