Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 6th January, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Trial No.59 of 1999. The trial court convicted accused No.1 Ramakant s/o Chandrasen Jadhav and accused No.4 Chabubai w/o Chandrasen Jadhav for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years, respectively, with fines. The remaining three co-accused were acquitted, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 498A read with Section 34. According to the prosecution, the victim Aruna Jadhav was the wife of accused Ramakant. The marriage was solemnized about four years prior, and a dowry of Rs.31,000 and one tola gold was agreed, of which Rs.26,000 and the gold were paid at marriage, leaving a balance of Rs.5,000. The informant, Balasaheb Kadam (PW1), father of the deceased, stated that the accused harassed Aruna for the remaining dowry. He paid the balance on 16th December, 1998, but the accused demanded that it should have doubled. On 22nd December, 1998, at about 4:00 p.m., Balasaheb received information that Aruna had been burnt. He rushed to the village and found her dead. Initially, an accidental death report was registered. Subsequently, Balasaheb lodged a report alleging that the accused had committed murder by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire to screen themselves from legal punishment. During investigation, it emerged that on the morning of the incident, a quarrel broke out between Aruna and her mother-in-law Chabubai over her drinking milk, and later with her husband Ramakant. Chabubai pushed Aruna to the ground; Ramakant brought a pillow, placed it on her mouth and nose and sat on it while Chabubai held her legs, causing death by smothering. Thereafter, they allegedly poured kerosene on the body and set it on fire to simulate an accidental stove burst. The medical evidence of PW6 Dr. Ramrao Pawar indicated that the body was totally burnt with black scald without vesicles, and the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to asphyxia due to smothering or suffocation. In cross-examination, the doctor admitted that burn flames could cause suffocation and that typical external injuries of smothering were absent. The trial court relied on the prosecution evidence to convict the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 28th June, 2017, pronouncing it on 4th August, 2017. The judgment as provided does not contain the final decision of the High Court on the appeal.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.49 OF 2001
