Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment dated 16 May 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 235 of 2011, convicting the appellant (original accused No. 1) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Ashwini, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that Ashwini married the appellant on 20 May 2011 and thereafter faced continuous ill-treatment and harassment from her husband and in-laws over a demand of Rs. 80,000 for purchasing a vehicle. It was alleged that the appellant also subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse repeatedly. On 28 May 2011, following a dispute over the money demand, the appellant poured kerosene on Ashwini and set her on fire, causing 80% burn injuries. She was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, where she made two dying declarations—one to a Special Judicial Magistrate and another to a police officer—stating that her husband had set her on fire. She later succumbed to the injuries, and the medical cause of death was septicemia due to 80% burns. The trial court, relying on the dying declarations, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC while acquitting the three co-accused (his parents and brother) of all charges (including Sections 498A and 376 IPC). In the appeal before the High Court, the appellant contended that the two dying declarations were inconsistent because the first made no mention of the Rs. 80,000 demand while the second did, and that both should be discarded. He also argued that the acquittal of all accused under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC eliminated any motive, and he himself was acquitted of rape under Section 376. The defense further claimed that the deceased had a love affair with one Raju Shaikh, who visited her matrimonial home on 27 May 2011 and presented a television set, leading to a quarrel between Raju Shaikh and the deceased’s father, which caused the deceased mental disturbance and prompted her to commit suicide on 28 May 2011. The appellant pointed to alleged exaggerations and omissions in the testimony of the deceased’s parents. The High Court heard the arguments but the provided text ends before the court’s analysis and final order.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.234 OF 2013
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 89
Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2013
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane
Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Mr. B.N. Palve (for Appellant); Mr. S.G. Karlekar, A.P.P. (for Respondent)
Haribhau s/o Babaji @ Babasaheb Jawale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (original accused No. 1) sought to set aside the trial court conviction and sentence, and prayed for acquittal.
Filing Reason
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 16 May 2013 passed in Sessions Case No. 235 of 2011 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting co-accused Nos. 2 to 4 of all charges.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained when the two dying declarations are inconsistent.
Whether the acquittal of all accused under Section 498A and Section 376 IPC undermines the prosecution case.
Whether the defense of suicide due to an alleged love affair and mental disturbance is probable and creates reasonable doubt.
Submissions/Arguments
The two dying declarations are inconsistent: the first does not mention the demand of Rs. 80,000, while the second does; this inconsistency renders both unreliable.
All accused were acquitted under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC, so no motive for the crime was established.
The appellant was also acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC, further weakening the prosecution case.
The deceased had a love affair with one Raju Shaikh and wanted to marry him; on 27 May 2011, Raju Shaikh visited the matrimonial home and presented a television set, which led to a quarrel with the deceased’s father, causing her mental disturbance and her subsequent suicide on 28 May 2011.
The evidence of the parents of the deceased (PW1 and PW3) suffers from exaggerations, omissions, and improvements.
Judgment Excerpts
Appellant Haribhau then took one bottle containing kerosene and poured kerosene over the body of Ashwini and set Ashwini on fire by igniting a matchstick.
there is inconsistency in both the dying declarations, in as much as in the first dying declaration there is no mention of demand of Rs.80,000/- by the Appellant or his family members, however in the second dying declaration it is stated that the Appellant and his family members demanded Rs.80,000/-
Deceased Ashwini was having love affair with one Raju Shaikh and she wanted to perform marriage with him.
Procedural History
On the basis of a dying declaration recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, offence was registered at Pathardi Police Station as Crime No. 209 of 2011 under Sections 307, 376, 323 r/w 34 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the JMFC, Pathardi, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ahmednagar on 23 September 2011. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302, 376, 498A r/w 34 IPC. After trial, the court convicted accused No. 1 under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the remaining co-accused. The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2013 before the High Court, which was heard and reserved for judgment on 15 March 2017, and pronounced on 31 March 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 302, 307, 376, 323, 498A read with 34
