BALASAHEB ASARAM SHIRSATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2013-1-137
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: AURANGABAD)
Decided on January 16,2013

Balasaheb Asaram Shirsath Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P. V. Hardas, J. - (1.)The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year and R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of which to undergo R.I. for six months, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, by judgment dated 12.4.2001, in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1998, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:-
PW 3 A.P.I. Babaji Budhwant, who was attached to police station, Newasa investigated the offence registered by Police Head Constable Shelke on 4.9.1994 on the basis of the report lodged by PW 1 Kachru at Exh. 11. PW 3. A.P.I. Budhwant accordingly collected the statement recorded of injured Vimal by the police from Tophkhana police station and also collected the dying declaration recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate. He collected the inquest panchanama which was drawn by the police. He also collected the scene of the incident panchanama drawn by Police Head Constable Vadaje. He recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the accused. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant and another accused was submitted.

(2.)Post-Mortem on the dead body of deceased Vimal was performed by the Medical Officer of the District Hospital, Ahmednagar. Vimal had sustained 76 per cent burns, and therefore, the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure due to 76 per cent burns. The post-mortem report is at Exh. 16 as it was admitted by the accused.
(3.)On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial court vide Exh. 3 framed charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 304B r/w 34 and 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.