Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Bhausaheb S/o Ganpat Pardhi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 367 of 2005
Decided on : 14-10-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher APP
For the Respondent: Mrs.Ashlesha S.Deshmukh
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC for causing simple hurt, emphasizing the credibility of the victim's testimony and modifying the sentence to the time already served.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 324 - Conviction for causing simple hurt - Appellant convicted for setting victim on fire after questioning her for not attending work - Trial Court reduced charges from Section 307 to Section 324 based on evidence - Sentence modified to period already undergone. (Paras 1, 14, 16)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of victim's testimony - Victim's statement deemed credible despite extensive cross-examination; corroborated by medical evidence and witness testimonies. (Paras 6, 13)
(C) Sentencing - Consideration of time served - Appellant had already undergone 13 months of imprisonment; sentence modified to reflect time already served. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for setting the victim on fire after she failed to report for work. The incident occurred on 28-05-2002, and the victim sustained burns requiring hospitalization. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to the time already served by the appellant.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony and the appropriateness of the sentence given the time served.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the victim's testimony credible and supported by medical evidence, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted simple hurt under Section 324.
Result: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was modified to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT :
1. Judgment and order of conviction dated 11-05-2005 passed by Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangamner in Sessions Case No.28 of 2002 recording guilt of appellant for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the subject matter of instant appeal.
2. In nutshell prosecution version is that, victim PW3 Naseem rendered labour work. That accused was a labour contractor, who engaged labours for loading and unloading of sand from the Truck. That on 28-05-2002, PW3 victim did not report to work as she had household work. That at around 02:30 p.m. appellant visited her house to question her. Thereafter, he poured kerosene from a lamp and ignited her. That she managed to reach the house of one Genu Pardhi. That said person informed her husband and she was taken to hospital at Sangamner. That said person informed her husband and she was taken to hospital at Sangamner where her statement was recorded and on its basis, crime was registered and finally investigated by PW12 Jadhav (PSI), who after arresting accused, carried out investigation and chargesheeted accused for commission of offence under Sections 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC.
After appreciating oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge accepted prosecution version and convicted appellant but only for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine and he came to be acquitted from rest of the charges for which he was charged. Said judgment rendered in Sessions Case No.28 of 2002 dated 11-05-2005 is now taken exception to by filing instant appeal.
SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant :
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of the prayers, took this Court through the evidence of PW3 victim, PW7 Sayyad, father of victim and PW8 Mariyambi, mother of victim and would submit that there is apparently false implication. That there is no direct evidence that accused incinerated victim. He pointed out that medical experts admitted that burns could be accidental. That there is no evidence showing visit of appellant to the house of victim and to connect him to the burns. He submitted that parents have hearsay information. That admittedly there were quarrels between PW3 victim and her husband PW4. According to him, at the first count, there is no evidence to show that accused had engaged victim for labour work. He further submitted that even otherwise burns suffered by victim are not on vital parts and even learned trial Court has recorded such findings. He would strenuously submitted that here infact appellant himself suffered burns. That there is no denial of this by prosecution. Lastly, he submitted that appellant has already undergone 13 months incarceration and having been sentenced for two years, he be set at liberty by awarding sentence for the period already undergone.
On behalf of State :
4. Countering the above submissions, learned APP submitted that PW3 victim’s statement is inspiring confidence. That merely for not reporting to work, appellant poured kerosene and incinerated her. That her dying declarations were recorded wherein she had reported role of appellant. That medical experts, who examined victim, treated her and certified burns, are also examined. Therefore, considering the nature of burns, learned trial Court has brought down the offence from Section 307 of the IPC to Section 324 of the IPC and so learned APP also strongly opposes reduction of sentence or letting him at liberty for the period already undergone, as according to him, appellant has inflicted burns deliberately by pouring kerosene.
EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL COURT
5. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses. Their status and role is as under :
PW1 Dhondiba Dada Shermale is pancha to panchanama of arrest of accused and about burns suffered by accused.
PW2 Bharat Ananda Raut is pancha to seizure of clothes of victim exh.35.
PW3 Naseem Shabir Pathan is victim, w
