- (1.)HEARD respective counsel for parties. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)IN regard to an incident that took place on25-7-2001, in which the victim Babai (PW1) w/o original accused no.1 Suresh (appellant no.1) was set on fire by pouring kerosene with assistance of Sakharbai (appellant no.2), who is admittedly second wife of appellant no.1, both the appellants were tried before the III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2001 for offences under Section498-A, 307 and 506 r/w 34 of INdian Penal Code and the learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated19-3-2002 convicted the appellants for offence under Section307 of INdian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month; and appellant no.1, in addition, was convicted for offence under Section498-A of INdian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellant no.2 was, however, acquitted of offence under Section498-A of INdian Penal Code. Both the appellants were acquitted of offence under Section506 r/w 34 of INdian Penal Code. So far as appellant no.1 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Sessions Judge by this appeal.
At the trial, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses, including the complainant Babai (PW1), Dr. Sharad Patil (PW4) who examined the victim Babai and issued certificate Exh. 30 for having found the victim suffered 35% burn injuries, one Bhausaheb Wayal (PW3) who had received message on phone from the victim Babai (PW1), Head Constable Akolkar (PW6) who was attached to Nagar Taluka police station and who recorded the complaint Exh. 21 as per the statement made by victim Babai (PW1) and on the basis of that offence came to be registered vide C. R. No. 111 of 2001. The charge-sheet was filed after completing investigation and before the Additional Sessions Judge, to the charge framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of denial.

It may be noted that the fact that the victim Babai (PW1) suffered burn injuries is not disputed. What was suggested on behalf of the defence at the trial was that the victim suffered burn injuries while she was at her parents house. The learned Sessions Judge, accepting the evidence of the victim Babai (PW1) who fortunately survived in spite of an attempt to commit her murder by pouring kerosene on her person, the statement made by her in her complaint Exh. 21, the medical evidence which consists of certificate Exh. 30 in which details of the burn injuries have been given, and the circumstances attending the case, came to the conclusion that the appellants did set on fire the victim Babai (PW1) by pouring kerosene on her person. On the evidence of witness Babai, the trial court found that she was subjected to cruelty as contemplated under Section498-A of Indian Penal Code. In keeping with these findings, the trial court convicted the appellants nos. 1 and 2 of offence under Sections 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and appellant no.1 was also found guilty of offence under Section498-A of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he was convicted for that offence and sentenced as stated earlier.

(3.)THOUGH I have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits, having regard to clinching evidence on record which has been rightly accepted by the trial court, I do not think, that so far as conviction is concerned, any interference is called for. In the light of submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, I have independently assessed the evidence of victim Babai (PW1) in which she has categorically stated as to how the incident has taken place, in which at night while she was sleeping, kerosene was poured on her person by the appellant and she was set on fire. It is pertinent to note that the fact that the victim Babai (PW1) suffered burn injuries is not disputed. It is borne out on the evidence on record and it is not challenged also that at the time when the incident took place the victim was residing in the house with the appellant. That is the reason why the trial court has rightly rejected the defence that the victim suffered burns when she was at her parents house. I have found that the defence was palpably false as also illogical. It is found, that the version of victim Babai (PW1) before the court as regards the incident that has taken place, has remained undisturbed though she was subjected to searching cross-examination by the defence. It is true that the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out some inconsistencies, as also delay that has occasioned in actually lodging the complaint. But, after considering over all evidence of the complainant, coupled with medical evidence, the inconsistencies which are brought out by the defence are found to be inconsequential. As regards delay in lodging the complaint it is apparent on the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Patil (PW6) when he has said that initially when he examined Babai (PW1) when she was admitted in the hospital, she was not able to give a statement. Therefore, in that contingency, later on after lapse of sometime when she was conscious and fit to make a statement, police recorded her statement which was taken as the complaint, on the basis of which offence came to be registered. Therefore, when intrinsic solitary evidence of victim Babai (PW1) inspires confidence; no error has been committed by the trial court in convicting the appellants by accepting the solitary version of the victim. The fact that the victim Babai (PW1) was a person who has suffered injuries in the incident and in such situation, her evidence before the court is to be accepted with added advantage that she herself is the sufferer and sustained injuries. Therefore, conviction of appellants for offence under Section307 of Indian Penal Code and that of appellant no.1 for offence under Section498-A of Indian Penal Code has to be confirmed.
This takes me to consider the submission of Shri. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, as also Mrs. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The basis of submission of learned counsel is that parties have come to terms and to substantiate that, complainant Babai (PW1) who is wife of appellant no.1 has filed her affidavit which is taken on record. It is not disputed that the victim Babai was married with appellant no.1 about22 years before and they have three children of their marriage, one son who is aged about 17 years and two daughters, out of whom, Sunita is aged about15 years. It is also admitted by the complainant that appellant no.2 Sakharbai is the second wife of the appellant no.1 and they have a daughter aged about3 years and admittedly appellants as well as complainant were living together. It is stated by the complainant in her affidavit that the relations between the appellants and complainant have improved with passage of time because of the intervention of the relatives and in the interest of the family and to have peace and harmony between them they have settled their dispute and differences by arriving at settlement in which appellant no.1 has agreed to maintain the complainant.