Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Uttam Barsagade (In ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps ... on 3 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
1
0308appa276 of 2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Application (APL) No.276 of 2021
In
Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2021
Sunil S/o Uttam Barsagade
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Police Station Kurkheda,
Tah. Kurkheda, Dist. Gadchiroli
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders
and Registrar's order
Shri A.C. Jaltare, Advocate for Applicant.
Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Non-Applicant/ State.
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE &
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 3rd AUGUST, 2021
1. This is an application for suspension of substantive jail
sentence and for grant of bail.
2. The applicant was convicted by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, on 10-3-2021 in Sessions Case No.74
of 2017. By the said judgment and order, the applicant was
punished for having committed an offence under Sections 498A
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant was
awarded punishment of imprisonment for life for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC; however, no separate
sentence is passed so far as the offence punishable under
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2021 05:15:54 :::
2
0308appa276 of 2021.odt
Section 498A of IPC is concerned.
3. Heard Shri A.C. Jaltare, learned counsel for the applicant;
and Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the non-applicant/State. Also perused the record and
proceedings placed before us for consideration of this application.
4. The name of the deceased is Sarita. Her marriage was
performed with the applicant on 19-4-2008. From the wedlock,
the couple is having two issues; the first is Soham, aged about
7 years; and the second is Himanshu, aged about 3½ years. The
incident in question occurred on 25-7-2017 in the residential
house of the applicant and the deceased. On the said date, the
deceased received the burn injuries and she succumbed to the
injuries after six days.
5. Deceased Sarita was brought to the hospital by PW 6
Roshan Dilip Kumbalwar, a neighbour. After she was brought to
the hospital, PW 2 Bharat Tulshiram Dange, ASI, recorded her
statement and on the basis of her statement, an offence was
registered against the applicant vide C.R. No.164 of 2017 for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. After the death of
Sarita, the offence was converted into that punishable under
Section 302 of IPC.
6. In the prosecution case, there are two dying declarations;
the first one was recorded on 27-7-2017 by PW 2 Bharat Dange,
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2021 05:15:54 :::
3
0308appa276 of 2021.odt
which is at Exhibit 29; and the another was recorded by PW 10
Sandeep Sarjerao Pundekar, Naib Tahsildar, on the same date,
which is at Exhibit 47.
7. Exhibit 29 shows that on 25-7-2017 at about 7.30 p.m.,
the deceased, applicant and their son Himanshu were taking their
meals. At that time, there was a disturbance in the electricity
supply. Therefore, the deceased went to the house of her
mother-in-law and brought a lamp. At that time, according to the
statement (Exhibit 29), the applicant picked up a quarrel with the
deceased. Exhibit 29 further recites that the deceased, in a
lighter vein, says to her husband that she will not reside with him.
Upon that, according to Exhibit 29, the applicant states that she
should die and thereafter poured kerosene on her person.
Thereafter, the deceased herself also poured kerosene on her
person. Exhibit 29 further recites that thereafter the applicant
ignited the lamp brought from the house of his mother-in-law and
set the deceased ablaze. It is further stated in the said statement
that she started shouting and on that, neighbour
Roshan Kumbalwar reached the house and poured water on her
person.
8. Exhibit 47, the another dying declaration, recorded by the
Naib Tahsildar shows that on the day of the incident at 7.30 p.m.
while taking dinner, there was a quarrel in between the applicant
and the deceased. Upon that, the mother-in-law of the deceased
came to their house. However, the applicant drove away his
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2021 05:15:54 :::
4
0308appa276 of 2021.odt
mother. Thereafter, as per the statement Exhibit 47, the applicant
told the deceased that she is not having any courage. Upon that, as
per Exhibit 47, the deceased poured kerosene on her person and
thereafter the applicant set her ablaze. Exhibit 47 further states
that Roshan Kumbalwar came to the spot. It is also stated that at
the time of incident, the mother-in-law of the deceased, her
brother-in-law, sister-in-law and son were also present. However,
she has a complaint only against the present applicant.
9. The important thing to consider at this stage is
non-seizure of the clothes of the applicant. This assumes
importance inasmuch as it was the submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant, based on the statement made by the
applicant, when he was examined under Section 313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, that at the relevant time, the applicant
was not present in the house. The independent witness Roshan
Kumbalwar, who brought the deceased to the hospital, also does
not state about the presence of the applicant on the spot. His
testimony is important one inasmuch as he immediately reached
the spot.
10. From both the dying declarations, prima facie, it can be
observed that there was no intention on the part of the applicant.
In other view, if the entire dying declaration is accepted, it cannot
travel beyond knowledge. Therefore, it is quite possible that the
offence can be scaled down.
::: Uploaded on - 03/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2021 05:15:54 :::
5
0308appa276 of 2021.odt
11. The applicant is not having any criminal record. He is in
jail from the date of his arrest, i.e. from 1-8-2017.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that
this is a case wherein the Court should exercise discretion in
favour of the applicant. Consequently, we pass the following
order.
ORDER
(I) The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the
applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gadchiroli, dated 10-3-2021, in Sessions Case No.74 of
2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and
498A of IPC shall stand suspended during the pendency
of this appeal.
(II) Applicant Sunil S/o Uttam Barsagade be released
on bail on he executing PR bond of Rs.10,000/- with one
solvent surety in the like amount.
(III) The applicant is directed to mark his presence
once in six months at Police Station Kurkheda during the
pendency of this appeal.
13. The criminal application is allowed and disposed of.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) (V.M. DESHPANDE, J.)
Lanjewar
