Advocates:
['P P', '', 'SHRIKANT KULKARNI TO ASSIST THE PP', 'SZ KOTHARI', 'SB TALEKAR', '', 'FOR R NO']

1

Cri.Appeal No.88/1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.88/1992.

with

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.781/1992.

1)

The State of Maharashtra

=

APPELLANT

(orig.Complainant)

VERSUS

1)

Dinesh s/o Trimbakappa

Shete, Age: 27 Yrs.

Occu. Service,

R/o Parli Vaijinath,

Tq.Ambejogai.

2)

Taibai w/o Shankarrao

Chillore, Age: 70 Yrs.

Occu. Household,

r/o as above.

=

RESPONDENTS

(orig.accused)

Mrs.SD Shelke, APP for State;

Mr.Shivkumar Mathpati, Advocate holding for Mr.SB

Talekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1;

-----

CORAM :

A.H.JOSHI &

A.R.JOSHI,JJ.

DATE : 22^nd August, 2011.

ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per:A.H.JOSHI,J.)

1)

Considering that the appeal is admitted

and the respondents are represented, the matter

2

Cri.Appeal No.88/1992

has appeared before this Court for final hearing.

On this count, the delay is condoned.

2)

Heard both the sides, perused the

evidence.

3)

It is seen that

the cause of death, as

reflected in the post mortem examination report

is, "Asphyxia due to throttling. It is noticed

that the dead body was completely charred and,

therefore, the case was of charge under Section

304-B r/w Section 498-A as well as Section 302 of

IPC.

4)

Perusal of the prosecution evidence

reveals that any proof as to demand or ill-

treatment in relation to the demands. In the

result, though death is unnatural, charge towards

offences under Section 498-A and 304-B of the

Indian Penal Code was not proved and the accused

got acquitted.

5)

In so far as the charge for commission

of offence punishable unde Section 302 of IPC is

concerned, the prosecution had to rely on

circumstancial evidence in absence of eye-

witnesses.

6)

The best circumstancial evidence inter

3

Cri.Appeal No.88/1992

alia other in the present case would be, the

nature of burn injuries.

7)

The first witness in relation to the

burn injury is PW No.12 – Dr.Shete, the Medical

Officer, who had conducted the post mortem

examination.

8)

In paragraph 6 of his deposition, the PW

12 – Dr.Shete has narrated his observations as to

the nature of burn injuries being post mortem.

The relevant portion is quoted as under, -

"5.

I internally examined the head

first, fracture of scalp. The

covering of brain and brain itself

was congested. No fracture of ribs

and cartilages. The pleura was

congested and tordues spots present.

No foreign body and no carbon

particles in larynx and trachea.

The right lung was congested. The

left lung was also congested..

Pericardium was congested. The left

side of the heart was empty. The

right side of the heart full of

fluid with blood. The peritoneum was

congested. No carbon particles on

esophagus. The stomach was empty.

No carbon was in the stomach. The

liver was congested. The kidney

bladder, pancreas, was congested.

There was male foetus of 24 weeks.

No meal was taken in 3 hours before

time of death. After noting all

these signs, I cam to the conclusion

regarding the case of death. The

viscera wa s preserved.

4

Cri.Appeal No.88/1992

6.

There were no signs of burn on

living tissues. There was no carbon

particles in oesophagus, trachea,

and stomach. The red line, around

the site of burns was not visible,

there were no blabs on skin, there

was no sign of preparative process

which is found in injury to living

tissues."

9)

It is seen from the cross-examination

that PW 12 – Dr.Shete has admitted that there was

over-writing in the entries in relation to column

No.18(a) pertaining to the description of Thorax.

The said column consisted of in one word "No".

The relevant portion, at verbatim, is quoted as

under, -

"It is correct that, in column 18(a)

of Exh.60 "No" was written and later

on scored out. It is correct that

the scoring does not bear the

signature of b