Bombay High Court
Liladhar S/O Kashinath Gajbhiye ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 5 January, 2018
Bench: R. B. Deo
apeal213of16.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2016
Liladhar s/o. Kashinath Gajbhiye,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Karambhad, Tah. Parshioni,
Dist. Nagpur ...APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer
Parshioni, District Nagpur ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. P. P. Chobe, counsel for the appellant (Appointed)
Mr. N.H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE OF DECISION : 05.01.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Challenge is to the judgment and order dated
17.5.2016, delivered by Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial
191 of 2015, by and under which, the appellant (hereinafter
referred to as "the accused") is convicted for offence punishable
under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to
payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- and is further convicted for offence
punishable under section 498-A and is sentenced to suffer simple
imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2 Heard Smt. P. P. Chobe, the learned counsel for the
accused and Shri. N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent / State.
3 The accused is in jail custody since 4.2.2015. This
appeal was heard on 4.1.2018 at some length. Having given my
anxious consideration to the evidence on record, I was inclined to
uphold the conviction and to alter the sentence, which in the
circumstances, I prima facie felt was too harsh.
4 The circumstances which weighed with me while
arriving at the prima facie opinion was that the burns suffered by
the complainant, who is the wife of the accused, were superficial
although the medical evidence suggested 18% burns. The
evidence on record has not brought out clearly the exact contours
of the incident. The fact that the accused poured kerosene and
ignited a match stick causing the complainant to suffer
burn injuries is duly proved by the evidence of the
complainant and Ms. Vidarbhakanya the daughter of the
complainant and the accused. However, the extent and volume of
the kerosene, the origin of the incident and the manner in which
the attempt to set complainant afire was made is a bit blurred. It
is on record that at the relevant time the accused was under the
influence of liquor.
5 However, at the conclusion of the hearing, the
complainant Surekha Liladhar Gajbhiye has appeared and has filed
on record an affidavit dated 5.1.2018. The affidavit reads thus:
"The abovesaid deponent as hereby take an oath and
solemnly affirms as under:
That on the basis of my complaint, the proceedings
under section 498-A and 307 of IPC were initiated against
my husband / appellant.
In this case the trial court has given conviction for
offence punishable under section 307 and 498-A of IPC,
thereby sentencing the Appellant to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-
in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for 6
months, sentence for offence under section 307 of IPC and
further convicted vide section 235 of Code of Criminal
procedure for the offence punishable under section 498A
of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further
suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months, vide order
dated 17.5.2016. Since 4.2.2015 the appellant is in jail.
In the meantime I used to meet the appellant with
our children. I have found that he is under full
repentance what actually he did and I am also convinced
that under influence of liquor only he has attacked me,
otherwise he is of good nature. So request is made to this
Hon'ble Court by me and on behalf of my children to
release him on the sentence already undergone. He may
be given one opportunity of rehabilitation.
I am swearing this affidavit with out of free will
with full consciousness without any force, coercion and
undue influence by anybody".
6 The learned counsel for the accused Smt. P. P. Chobe,
has satisfied herself about the identity of the deponent. I have
personally interviewed the deponent. Her anxiety to put a quietus
to the unfortunate incident appears to be genuine and bonafide.
Smt. Chobe, the learned counsel for the accused has invited my
attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ishwar
Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 560 (S.C.).
7 On a holistic consideration of the evidence on record
and the desire of the complainant to make peace with her husband
- accused, I do not see any difficulty in maintaining the conviction
and altering the sentence to already undergone.
8 The conviction of the accused under section 307 and
498-A of IPC is maintained. However, for both the offences the
accused is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone.
9 The accused be released from jail custody forthwith unless
he is required in some other case.
10 The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
11 The fees of the appointed counsel are quantified at
Rs. 5,000/-.
JUDGE
RS Belkhede
