Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting appellant No. 1 (Subhash Chavan) under Section 302 IPC for murder and under Section 504 IPC, and convicting appellant No. 2 (Pappu Chavan) under Section 504 IPC while acquitting him under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 28th December 2009 at 6:00 a.m., the deceased Sunita Sanjay Chavan went to fetch water from a well. The accused persons tried to snatch her bucket and rope, and when she resisted, they abused her. She returned home, and the accused followed, continuing to abuse her. Neighbors intervened, but the accused brought kerosene from their house, poured it on her, and set her on fire. She sustained 100% burn injuries and died. The dying declaration recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate and a doctor implicated both accused. The trial court convicted appellant No. 1 for murder and both for insult. The appellants challenged their convictions. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the dying declaration, which it found to be voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by oral testimony. The court held that appellant No. 1 actively participated in the act of setting the deceased on fire, thus his conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld. However, for appellant No. 2, there was no evidence of his participation in the actual act of burning; his mere presence and abuse did not establish common intention for murder under Section 34 IPC. Therefore, his acquittal under Section 302 IPC was confirmed. Both appellants' convictions under Section 504 IPC were upheld as the abuse was intentional and provocative. The sentences were maintained. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder by Burning - Dying Declaration - Corroboration - The deceased sustained 100% burn injuries and her dying declaration was recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate and a doctor - The court held that the dying declaration was voluntary, truthful, and consistent with the oral testimony of witnesses - Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Acquittal of Co-accused - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The co-accused (appellant No. 2) was acquitted of murder as there was no evidence of his active participation in the act of setting the deceased on fire - His mere presence and abuse did not attract Section 34 IPC for murder - However, his conviction under Section 504 IPC for intentional insult was upheld (Paras 2, 10). C) Criminal Law - Intentional Insult - Section 504 IPC - Both accused were convicted under Section 504 IPC for abusing the deceased - The court found that the abuse was intentional and provoked the deceased, leading to the incident - Sentences of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 each were confirmed (Paras 2, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of appellant No. 1 under Section 302 IPC and the acquittal of appellant No. 2 under Section 302 IPC are sustainable based on the evidence, particularly the dying declaration.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of appellant No. 1 under Section 302 IPC and the acquittal of appellant No. 2 under Section 302 IPC. The convictions under Section 504 IPC for both appellants were also upheld.
Law Points
- Murder by burning
- dying declaration
- corroboration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- common intention
- acquittal of co-accused
