STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. VIJAY PANDURANG PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 76 of 1991. By the said judgment and order dated 29-8-1991, the additional Sessions Judge, Pune, was pleased to acquit the accused-appellant herein of the offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Sushma married the appellant-accused on 22-3-1990 at Pune. The appellant-accused was a resident of Jategaon and after marriage Sushma went to reside with her husband at their house at Jategaon. The prosecution case is that at the time of marriage, the appellant-accused was working in Bharat forge Co. Prosecution case is that 2 months after marriage, Sushma informed her parents that her husband used to suspect her fidelity and used to beat and assault her. Prosecution case further is that thereafter parents of the deceased Sushma went to the house of the accused and informed about the ill-treatment by the accused to his father and uncle. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, accused and Sushma started residing at the house of parents of Sushma at Swargate, Pune. Thereafter, the appellant rented a room at vadgaon Sheri and appellant and Sushma started residing there. Prosecution case is that the appellant continued to suspect his wife's fidelity and used to beat her. Prosecution case further is that on 15-9-1990 at about 8.30 to 9. 00 p. m. there was a quarrel between the husband and wife, as usual, appellant-accused was alleging that Sushma had illicit relation with others. Thereafter, at about 11 p. m. , being sick and tired due to the constant harassment, sushma poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. After hearing cries of sushma, her neighbour Vithabai went to her house, called the landlord who, along with appellant-accused took Sushma to the hospital in a rickshaw. Statement of Sushma was recorded and she expired on the same day at about 4.20 a. m. A complaint was lodged by yervada Police Station and an offence was registered under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against him. Charge was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty to the said charge. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

(3.) I have heard learned A. P. P. for the State and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused. The leaned a. P. P. has taken me through the judgment and order of the trial Court and also oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Learned A. P. P. submits that the deceased sushma had made a statement before her death in which she has stated that she had committed the said act on account of her harassment by her husband. He submitted that the said dying declaration ought to have been relied upon by the trial Court. He has submitted that statements of other witnesses corroborated the dying declaration. He submitted that witnesses examined by the prosecution corroborated the story of ill-treatment and harassment by the accused to the deceased. He submitted that all these witnesses had stated that the accused used to suspect her character and used to beat her. He further submitted that the trial Court had erred in discarding the dying declaration. He submitted that P. W. 5-Jayant Khomane was special Judicial Magistrate, in whose presence dying declaration was recorded. This witness has stated that at the time of recording the dying declaration, doctor was present and his endorsement was obtained on the dying declaration. He submitted that doctor was examined by the prosecution. He also submitted that the Doctor had made an endorsement on the said dying declaration in his own handwriting. Learned A. P. P. further submitted that the accused was subjecting his wife-Sushma to cruelty and because of the said conduct of the accused, his wife had no other option but to commit suicide. He submitted that since Sushma died within 6 months from the date of her marriage, presumption was required to be drawn under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.