Bombay High Court
Revnath S/O. Pundlik Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2024
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2024:BHC-AUG:26823-DB
Cri.Appeal No.818/2024
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.818 OF 2024
Revnath s/o Pundlik Pawar
Age 43 years, Occ. Priate Service
R/o Leha Jahagir, Tal. Phulambri,
District Aurangabad
At present R/o Patoda Shivar,
Taluka & District Aurangabad ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Satara,
District Aurangabad
(Copy to be served on the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENT
.......
Mrs. Renuka Palve (Ghule), Advocate for appellant
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent - State
.......
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.):
The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment and
order of conviction and consequential sentence, passed by
:: 2 ::
learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case
No.92/2014, whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit
that, the children of the appellant who were present in the
house, have not been examined. Had they been really
examined, the truth would have been revealed. According to
her, the deceased would make use of diesel for cooking.
3. The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand,
submit that, the deceased was alcoholic. He did not have a
vehicle to run on diesel. The same indicates, he had come
prepared with a diesel can to set his wife ablaze and kill her. In
short, the learned A.P.P. meant to say that the appellant had an
intention to do away with his wife by setting her ablaze. The
:: 3 ::
learned A.P.P. ultimately urged for dismissal of the appeal.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the
appellant and learned A.P.P., we find it to be a case of an
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian
Penal Code. The appellant is behind the bars for little over 11
years. The maximum punishment provided for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code
is ten years.
5. The appellant had set ablaze his wife by dousing
diesel, whereby she died. The record, however, indicates that,
it was the appellant who extinguished the fire and rushed the
deceased to the hospital. The same suggests, he did not have
an intention to do away with his wife. Learned Advocate for
the appellant would submit that, the deceased died
accidentally while she was cooking. She would make use of
diesel as a fuel for cooking. The crime scene panchanama
(Exh.17), however, indicates that there was a can containing
diesel. The C.A. report (Exh.2) indicates the clothes on the
person of the deceased had diesel residues. There are two
:: 4 ::
dying declarations, one made to the police officer and another
to the Executive Magistrate. Both find place at Exhs.15 and 32
respectively. Dr. Eknath Gabale (P.W.2) and Dr. Gajanan
Chaudhari (P.W.6) had examined the deceased before
recording of her both the dying declarations. They have
categorically deposed that the victim was conscious oriented to
make a statement and thereafter the same was recorded by
the Executive Magistrate Ashok Nandagawali (P.W.5) and
Police Head Constable Narayan Butte (P.W.1).
6. As such, the aforesaid evidence undoubtedly
indicates that it was the appellant who doused his wife with
diesel and set her ablaze. The appellant was addicted to
alcohol. He wanted money from her to consume more. Since
she refused to pay him, he set her ablaze. But there were
mitigating circumstances indicating him to have extinguished
the fire and rushed her to the hospital immediately. Moreover,
he was under influence of alcohol. The deceased died 8 days
after the incident. All these facts indicate that the appellant did
not have an intention to kill his wife. In our considered view,
the appellant has to be attributed with the knowledge that by
:: 5 ::
doing such an act, the consequence would be death of the
victim/ his wife. In view of the above, the appeal partly
succeeds in terms of the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, vide order dated
24/08/2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad
in Sessions Case No.92/2014 is hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code. Instead, the appellant is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II
of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees
five hundred), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
(iii) It appears that the appellant is behind the bars for little
over 11 years. Set off be given as per Section 428 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith
:: 6 ::
if he has really served out the sentence, if not required in any
other case.
(iv) Fees of learned Advocate Mrs. Renuka Palve (Ghule),
Advocate for appellant, who is appointed through Legal Aid, is
quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand).
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.)
fmp/-
