PALSHIKAR,j. - (1.)BEING aggrieved by the judgment and conviction as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1998 of 25.6.1998 the appellant who is now in jail has preferred the above appeal.
(2.)FIRST Information Report was lodged in the police station by P.W.3-Adik S. Hawaldar stating that on28.5.1997 at around 4. 00 p. m. one Shri Bhimrao came to him from village Kodoli and told him that his sister has sustained burn injuries who was burnt to a large extent. He then narrates that he was told by his sister that she was burnt by the accused after having denied money to satisfy his lust for liquor. He therefore took the deceased to his village Bagani from Kodoli, showed her children to her and then took her to the hospital at Sangli where she died at around 10. 00 p. m. on28.5.1998. He thereafter went to police station and lodged FIR being Ex.13 as aforesaid which has been duly proved by P.W.3-Adik who has been examined at Exhibit 12. On the basis of this FIR investigation was conducted and the police arrested the accused, prosecuted him under section302 as also section498a of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation was complete challan was filed, charge was framed and the accused was tried according to law in the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The learned trial Judge recorded evidence of 12 witnesses and on conclusion of the trial found the accused guilty for both the offences under section302 and 498a of I. P. C. and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section302. He was also punished for offence under section498a of I. P. C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal from jail on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Since the accused is pauper he was unrepresented and this Court appointed Shri A. G. Toraskar, learned advocate to represent the appellant.
Shri Toraskar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that it is clear case of suicide. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was responsible for putting the deceased on fire. He contended that there is evidence in the shape of P.W.5- Dr. Shivaji B. Jadhav who examined the accused deposing in equivocal terms that the accused sustained burn injuries on his own hands. Doctor has also deposed that the accused told him that he was trying to douse the fire on his wife and therefore he sustained burn injuries. Doctor has so deposed in the Court and there is no substantial cross examination of the Doctor on this aspect of the point. He therefore claims that there may have been quarrel between the man and the wife but the husband was not responsible for killing her by setting her on fire. It is clear case of suicide as she was fed up with the conduct of the accused. The learned advocate also pointed out to us certain contradictions which are material, according to him and which go to show that the entire story as presented by the prosecution is not the only truth. He therefore submitted that in these circumstances the accused is entitled to acquittal.

Mrs. Bhosale, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is enough cogent evidence to sustain the judgment of the learned trial Judge. There has been immediate disclosure of the occurrence by the deceased to those who were present around her. Medical report corroborates the circumstances as narrated by the witnesses who heard the deceased saying that she was burnt by her husband. According to her, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is proper and needs no interference.

(3.)P. W.1-Hanmant S. Patil is a panch who has proved the spot panchnama-Ex.9. It has been recorded by the panchas one of whom was Bhimrao-P.W.8 owner of the room occupied by the deceased and the accused. It is noted in the panchnama that when the shouts were heard on27.5.1997 around midnight the owner Shri Bhimrao went to the room and claimed that it should be opened. On his request the door was opened by the deceased who was shouting that she is dead. The panchnama then records the statement of said Bhimrao that he was told by the victim that she had set herself of fire as she is unable to cope up with the torture meted out to her by her husband. The said Bhimrao then called her brother P.W.3-Adik from his place i. e. village Bagani who on his arrival saw the victim and took her to the hospital. The panchnama also records that soil was wet as if water was poured thereon. There is no cross examination of this panch witness. He has duly proved Exh. 9.
The prosecution has then examined P.W.2- Sarjerao Bhosale who proved this panchnama in front of the accused and the seizure of his clothes. The testimony of this witness is therefore wholly inconsequential.