Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2003. Case: Subhash Vs The State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 2003 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: A.S. Kale, Advocate h/f. S.B. Talekar, Advocate and S.M. Vibhute, Advocate and For Respondents: S.M. Ganachari, A.P.P. |
| Judges | A.I.S. Cheema, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 306, 498A |
| Judgement Date | April 20, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A.I.S. Cheema, J.
-
The Appellant - original accused (hereafter referred as 'accused') has been convicted for offence under Section 306 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief). For Section 306 of I.P.C. he has been directed to suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rupees One Thousand. In default of fine, he is directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. Under Section 498-A of I.P.C. he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay fine of Rupees Five Hundred, and in default to suffer further imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence was passed by Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 128 of 2000 on 11th July 2003.
-
Agitated by the conviction the Appellant-accused filed this Appeal.
-
In the Sessions Court, along with the present Appellant- accused, there were two more accused i.e. accused No. 2 - Arjun Kamble and accused No. 3 - Gojarbai w/o Arjun Kamble. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial Court.
-
The facts in brief, are as follows:--
"(A). On 3rd November 1999, Dr. Sanjiv Madhekar (PW-7) working as medical officer, civil hospital, Osmanabad informed police (vide Exhibit 35) that lady Asha Subhash Chandanshive (hereafter referred as "victim") had been brought to hospital in burnt condition. On getting information, A.S.I. Pratap Kulkarni (PW-2) posted at the out-post of the hospital, went and met the doctor and in the presence of the doctor, recorded the dying declaration (Exhibit 36) of the victim. The victim informed the police in her dying declaration that her husband had illicit relations with accused No. 3 Gojarbai and on the day of incident, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 had come to her house and quarrelled with her. Getting angry, she went to the inner room and put kerosene on herself and burnt herself.
(B). The victim succumbed to her injuries on 4th November 1999. Postmortem was done by Doctor Ashok Kathare (PW-1). Postmortem report (Exhibit 33) found that the victim had 82% burn injuries and that she had died due to the burn injuries. Brother of the victim, Gautam Kalkhaire (PW-3) took the dead body to his village Ieet and performed the last rites. On 4th November 1999 at about 23.15 hours, he filed F.I.R. (Exhibit 38) against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 at Bhum Police Station and Crime No. 111 of 999 was registered. Police took up investigation and recorded statements of witnesses. The spot panchanama (Exhibit 45) had been done on 3rd November 1999 itself on the basis of station diary entry. After investigation, A.C.P. Nana Patil (PW-8 - wrongly marked as PW-7 in the record of the trial Court) filed charge-sheet."
-
On committal of the matter to the Court of Sessions, charge was framed for above Sections. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is of denial. In cross-examination of witnesses, there are suggestions of the victim dying of accidental burns.
-
The trial Court, after the trial was concluded, convicted the accused No. 1 (present Appellant) and the other two accused came to be acquitted.
Arguments of Appellant-Accused
-
I have heard learned counsel for Appellant- accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. It is claimed in the Appeal and it is argued that the Judgment of conviction as recorded by the trial Court, is not maintainable. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly. In the dying declaration, the victim had complained only against accused Nos. 2 and 3 and relying on such dying declaration, wrongly the Appellant has been convicted. Rather there was evidence that the Appellant - accused rescued his wife when she was burning and in the process, himself got injured. There is no evidence that in fact there were illicit relations between the Appellant -accused and the original accused No. 3. It is unlikely that if a woman is having illicit relations with another person, she would go with her husband to the house of the other person and quarrel with his wife. In the trial Court, evidence was brought to claim that the Appellant-accused was suspecting character of the victim. At the same time, evidence was brought that the victim was suspecting her husband. For both aspects, wrongly blame has been put on the accused. The victim was an educated woman who was serving as teacher in Anganwadi. She had never made any complaint of ill-treatment. Rather there is evidence that the couple was living happily even till the date of incident. The learned counsel for the Appellant referred to the observations of the trial Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial