Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1554 (BOM)

Raju Pavalas Pakhre v. State of Maharashtra

2016-08-26

MRIDULA BHATKAR, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 415 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default S.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Meena was married to the appellant about 10 years prior to the incident. They had one son. Meena was residing with her husband, her son and mother of the appellant at Ulhasnagar. Meena was the daughter of PW 1 Gangasagar. The appellant was demanding Rs. 20000/- for taking a room on rent. For that, he was harassing Meena. Meena came to the house of her mother for delivery. After delivery, the appellant told Gangasagar that he would not take Meena with him unless Rs. 20000/- was paid to him. Gangasagar did not pay the amount. (b) On 15.3.2007, the mother of the appellant told Gangasagar that under influence of liquor, the appellant was harassing her, therefore, she requested Gangasagar to keep the appellant with her. The mother of the appellant requested to take a room on rental basis. On 15.3.2007, the appellant came to the house of Gangasagar. The appellant and Meena decided to take a room on rental basis. Accordingly, on 20.3.2007, they took one room on rent. Deposit amount of Rs. 9000/- had to be paid to take the room on rent. PW 4 Ofia with whom Meena was working as a maid servant gave Rs. 3000/- to Meena. PW 11 Anita Joshi with whom Meena was working as a maid servant gave Rs. 3000/- to Meena. Meena collected another Rs. 3000/-. Thus, the amount was paid for taking the room on rent. Though the appellant knew that Meena had collected the amount of Rs. 9000/- from the places where she was working as maid servant, the appellant asked Meena from where she had collected the amount of Rs. 9000/-. On account of this, he was suspicious about Meena. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with Meena. The appellant also beat Meena. (c) The incident occurred on 31.3.2007. 9000/- from the places where she was working as maid servant, the appellant asked Meena from where she had collected the amount of Rs. 9000/-. On account of this, he was suspicious about Meena. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with Meena. The appellant also beat Meena. (c) The incident occurred on 31.3.2007. At about 11.00 a.m., the appellant poured kerosene on Meena and set her on fire. Meena was admitted to the Civil Hospital. On being informed, PW 1 Gangasagar, the mother of Meena went to meet Meena in the Civil Hospital. Oral dying declaration was made by Meena to her mother Gangasagar where Meena stated that her husband had set her on fire. PW 1 Gangasagar then lodged FIR Exh. 22. Thereafter investigation commenced. Meanwhile, two dying declarations of Meena were recorded. The first dying declaration was recorded by PW 6 PSI Jadhav. The said dying declaration is at Exh. 32. The second dying declaration was recorded by PW 7 SEO Ms. Kesarkar. This dying declaration is at Exh. 35. In both the dying declarations, Meena stated that her husband had set her on fire. Meena expired on account of 81% burn injuries on 1.4.2007. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. 5. The conviction of the appellant is based on two dying declarations Exh. 32 and Exh. 35 and oral dying declaration to PW 1 Gangasagar who was the mother of deceased Meena. 5. The conviction of the appellant is based on two dying declarations Exh. 32 and Exh. 35 and oral dying declaration to PW 1 Gangasagar who was the mother of deceased Meena. PW 1 Gangasagar has stated that deceased Meena was married to the appellant about 10 years prior to the incident. Meena was residing with her husband, her son and mother of the appellant at Ulhasnagar. The appellant was demanding Rs. 20000/- for taking a room on rent. For that, he was harassing Meena. Meena came to the house of Gangasagar for delivery. After delivery, the appellant told Gangasagar that he would not take Meena with him unless Rs. 20000/- was paid to him. Gangasagar did not pay the amount. PW 1 Gangasagar further stated that on 15.3.2007, the mother of the appellant told Gangasagar that under influence of liquor, the appellant was harassing her, therefore, she requested Gangasagar to keep the appellant with her. The mother of the appellant requested to take a room on rental basis. On 15.3.2007, the appellant came to the house of Gangasagar. The appellant and Meena decided to take a room on rental basis. Accordingly, on 20.3.2007, they took one room on rent. Deposit amount of Rs. 9000/- had to be paid to take the room on rent. One Revati Madam, one Joshi madam (PW 11) and one Aunty had given Rs. 3000/- each to Meena for taking a room on rent. Thus, the amount was paid for taking the room on rent. Though the appellant knew that Meena had collected the amount of Rs. 9000/- from the places where she was working as maid servant, the appellant asked Meena from where she had collected the amount of Rs. 9000/-. On account of this, he was suspicious about Meena. The appellant was addicted to alcohol and on account of suspicion, he used to quarrel with Meena. The appellant also beat Meena. Gangasagar has further stated that on 31.3.2007 at about 11.00 to 11.30 a.m., the grandson of Gangasagar came and informed her that Meena had received burn injuries. Neighbours had taken Meena to hospital prior to Gangasagar reaching the house of Meena, hence, PW 1 Gangasagar, the mother of Meena met Meena in the Civil Hospital. Oral dying declaration was made by Meena to her mother Gangasagar. Meena told Gangasagar that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Neighbours had taken Meena to hospital prior to Gangasagar reaching the house of Meena, hence, PW 1 Gangasagar, the mother of Meena met Meena in the Civil Hospital. Oral dying declaration was made by Meena to her mother Gangasagar. Meena told Gangasagar that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. PW 1 Gangasagar then lodged FIR Exh. 22. 6. In addition to the oral dying declaration, the conviction is based on two dying declarations i.e Exh. 32 and Exh. 35. Exh. 32 was recorded by PW 6 PSI Jadhav. PW 6 PSI Jadhav has stated that on 31.3.2007, he received a phone call that Meena Raju Pakhre had received burn injuries and was admitted in the hospital. PW 6 PSI Jadhav was called for recording her statement. PSI Jadhav went to the Civil Hospital. He made inquiries with the Medical Officer whether Meena was able to make a statement. The Medical Officer opined that Meena was in a fit state to make a statement. Thereupon, PSI Jadhav recorded the statement of Meena. The said statement is at Exh.32. In the dying declaration Exh. 32, Meena has stated that her husband made inquiry about Rs. 9000/- Thereupon, there was quarrel between her and her husband. Her husband then poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. 7. PW 7 SEO Ms. Kesarkar had stated that she was called on 31.3.2007 by Wagle Estate Police Station to the Civil Hospital to record the statement of one lady who had received burn injuries. She reached the Civil Hospital at about 2 p.m. She made inquiries with patient Meena Raju Pakhre. The Medical Officer was present there. Meena told that her husband had set her on fire. Dying declaration recorded by Ms. Kesarkar is at Exh. 35. PW 10 Dr. Maijabeen is the Doctor who gave endorsement on the dying that the patient was conscious. 8. The appellant had set his wife Meena on fire on account of the fact that he had some suspicion in his mind about Rs. 9000/- which was collected by Meena so that the appellant and Meena could take a room on rent. The evidence of PW 4 Ofia shows that she gave Rs. 3000/- to Meena so that Meena could take a room on rent. The evidence of PW 11 Anita Joshi shows that she gave Rs. 9000/- which was collected by Meena so that the appellant and Meena could take a room on rent. The evidence of PW 4 Ofia shows that she gave Rs. 3000/- to Meena so that Meena could take a room on rent. The evidence of PW 11 Anita Joshi shows that she gave Rs. 3000/- to Meena so that Meena could take a room on rent. The evidence of PW 1 Gangasagar shows that one Revati Madam, one Joshi Madam (PW 11) and one aunty (presumably PW 4 Ofia) gave Rs. 3000/- each to Meena and thus, Meena collected Rs. 9000/- to take a room on rent. 9. It is the prosecution case that the appellant poured kerosene on Meena and set her on fire due to which Meena died. This is borne out by C.A. report Exh. 41. The C.A. report Exh. 41 shows that partly burnt cloth pieces and partly burnt pieces of mat which were seized from the spot tested positive for kerosene residues. The evidence of PW 8 Dr. Kalbande further corroborates the prosecution case that the appellant set his wife Meena on fire. PW 8 Dr. Kalbande performed the postmortem on the dead body of Meena. He has stated that he noticed 81% superficial to deep burn injuries and the cause of death was neurogenic shock due to 81% superficial to deep burn injuries. Thus, the medical and forensic evidence also support the prosecution case. 10. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant set his wife Meena on fire and caused her death. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 11. Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail. 12. We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Ms. Rohini Dandekar at Rs. 5000/-. Appeal dismissed.