Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 75 (BOM)

Rangnath Baban Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra

2004-01-19

P.V.KAKADE, V.G.PALSHIKAR

body2004
JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---This appeal is transmitted through jail and impugns the order dated 24-8-1998 passed in Sessions Case No. 300/96 whereby the present appeal is convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life. 2.With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence. 3.The prosecution story as revealed on reappreciation of evidence stated briefly is that the appellant-accused Rangnath and deceased Pushpa were married to each other. They had three children out of the wedlock and were residing in Nigidi Vasahat, Pune 42. On 23-11-1995 accused returned home under influence of liquor and handed over Rs. 50/- to the victim who asked as to whether remaining Rs. 50/- were consumed by the accused. Enraged the accused set wife Pushpa on fire, closed the door from outside and ran away. He was thereafter duly arrested and prosecuted. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses to prove its case. P.W. 1 Ganpat Kamble is panch who executed the panchnama of the spot. He states that at that time the floor was smelling of kerosene and burns. He duly proves the panchnama. 4.P.W. 2 Ulhas Koranne is Special Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the victim Pushpa and proved it in the Court as Ex. 16. He has in very clear terms deposed that the condition of the patient was good while recording dying declaration. The doctor has deposed that he examined the patient and found that the patient was in position to make statement. He therefore proceeded to record the same. P.W. 3 Abhijeet Mantri was present as doctor when statements of the victim were recorded. He states in very clear terms that he was so present during the recording of the statement of the patient and that the patient was conscious and oriented to give reply to the questions put by the Magistrate P.W. 2. P.W. 4 Sulochana Padale is the mother of the victim who arrived at the scene of offence subsequently. Her evidence is not of much relevance. P.W. 5 Hiraman Wavare is the person who came on the scene of offence on hearing shouts of the victim, opened the door saw the victim burning and took her to the hospital. The testimony of this witness clinches the case against the accused. Her evidence is not of much relevance. P.W. 5 Hiraman Wavare is the person who came on the scene of offence on hearing shouts of the victim, opened the door saw the victim burning and took her to the hospital. The testimony of this witness clinches the case against the accused. The victim in her dying declaration has stated that the accused put her on fire, bolted the door from outside and ran away. The evidence of P.W. 5 corroborates the statement when he says that he heard the noise, came to the house opened the door and saw the victim burning inside. The dying declaration thus stands duly corroborated by the eye-witness testimony of P.W. 5 and intrinsic evidence in the panchnama recorded by P.W. 1. Recording of dying declaration is beyond any doubt. There cannot be any doubt about its truthfulness. We see no reason why the unequivocal statement made by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 be not accepted when they say that the patient was conscious and oriental at the time when the statement was recorded. There is therefore no substance in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result appeals fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.