KAKADE, J. - (1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated-23rd April, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 218 of 1998 wherein he was convicted for the offences punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/= in default to suffer R. I. for three months. Further he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section498-A of IPC and was sentenced to suffer R. I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/= in default to suffer R. I. for 2 months and further under Section201 of the Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to suffer R. I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/= in default to suffer R. I. for 15 days. All substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus - Deceased Jaya was married to accused in the year 1991. She was daughter of Subhash and Ashabai Netke. After the marriage Jaya was residing along with accused and his family members in the house No. 7, Queens Garden, Pune. It is alleged that, initially the accused was working as a rickshaw driver only for few months but, subsequently he was not doing any sort of work, he was addicted to liquor. He used to extract money from his parents and spend the said money in persuance of his addiction and then under the influence of alcohol, he used to quarrel with Jaya, giving abuses to her and also suspected her fidelity and he also used to drive out her from the house. For some time Jaya used to reside in the house of her parents but, again the accused used to bring her back to matrimonial home, but the same state of affairs continued for five to six years. During this period Jaya gave birth to three children. At the time of pregnancy of her third child she was again driven out of the house after assaulting her severely. Then she went to her parents house, and was taken to one Women's Organization which tried to settle the matter and then in January, 1998 after her delivery, accused took her back to his house. The incident occurred on4.2.1998. On that day as usual at about 2. 00 p. m. the accused returned to the house under the influence of alcohol and then started quarrelling with Jaya, giving her abuses in filthy language. Jaya requested him not to do so, otherwise she will pour kerosene on herself. The accused threatened her to do whatever she wanted and continued to give her abuses and beating and therefore, Jaya poured kerosene on herself, and then accused ignited the match stick and set her on fire. Jaya came out of the house shouting with plain. The persons residing nearby then came there and doused the fire and Jaya was taken to Sasoon Hospital. At Sasoon Hospital information was given that while preparing the food, due to the emission of the flames from the stove Jaya had sustained the burns accidently. The said information was accordingly noted down in the M. L. C. register. Requisition was made to Special Judicial Magistrate for recording her dying declaration. Accordingly, it was recorded at about4. 00 p. m. in which Jaya disclosed about the true facts regarding the incident, making allegations and complaint against her husband that accused had set her on fire. This dying declaration was sent to Bund Garden Police Station, which was treated as FIR and offence was registered on that basis. Investigation was commenced, in which course spot panchanama was made at about7. 00 p. m. and incriminating articles including kerosene can, match box, half burnt match stick and the burnt pieces of clothes etc. were attached by the police. The statements of Jaya's parents, relatives and other adjoining occupants came to be recorded. Meanwhile Jaya succumbed to her injuries on9.2.1998. The offence was converted into that of murder against the accused. The accused was arrested on4.2.1998 and was also referred to Sasoon Hospital for his medical treatment as he had also sustained burn injuries on his hands. The incriminating articles were sent to Chemical Analyser for scientific examination, whose report was received and is part of the record. On completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The learned magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the impugned offences. THE defence of the accused is that of total denial. According to the accused, his wife Jaya poured kerosene upon her and lit herself on fire and therefore, he was not guilty. In fact he tried to extinguish the fire in which course his hands were burnt. THE prosecution led its evidence, on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused in aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal. We heard Ms. Shah, the learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Kantharia, the learned APP for the State, at length. We have also perused the entire evidence on record.;