RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on July 27,2006

RAJENDRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MANGAL MAZUMDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
SADAN RAM SORI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2009-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAGANBHAI NANUBHAI PATEL AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-8-44] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.P. Singh. J. - (1.)The appellants herein have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dated 13.07.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 153/1996. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order has affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the Trial Court under Sections 498A and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. On the former count the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of No. 500/- and in default to undergo RI for six months. On the latter count they have been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of No. 1,000/- each and in default to suffer further RI for one year.
(2.)The deceased Rekhabi was married to the appellant No. 1 herein on May 01, 1995. Appellant No. 2 was the father-in-law while appellant No. 3 was the mother-in-law of the deceased. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the night intervening 29-30 September, 1995 at about 2.30 a.m. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant No. 1 needed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to obtain a job in the State Transport Department for which he had applied on the 10th August, 1995. He had asked his wife to convey the demand to her parents but the parents were unable to fulfill the said demand. According to the deceased she was being continuously beaten by the accused for the last about 3-4 days before the date of occurrence.
(3.)On the night of occurrence, according to the prosecution, while the deceased was sleeping she was called to the adjoining room and while appellant No. 1 held her, appellant No. 3 sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and appellant No. 2 set her on fire. After doing so they ran away. The deceased also ran out of the house and raised an alarm which attracted several persons to the place of occurrence which included PW-7 Devidas and PW-8 Bansilal, another neighbour. They threw a guilt on her and extinguished the fire. The deceased was removed to the local hospital for treatment. It is not disputed that she was brought to the hospital by her neighbours and her husband appellant No. 1 and father-in-law appellant No. 2. The Police Sub Inspector PW-9 on getting information about the occurrence rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased in the presence of treating physician PW-11. In her report to the PSI (PW-9) she stated that she was called by the appellants and while her husband appellant No. 1 held her, appellant No. 3 sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and appellant No. 2 set her on fire with a match stick. The said report which was later treated as a dying declaration is said to have been recorded at 3.30 a.m. On the same day, a little later another dying declaration was recorded by a person nominated to act as Executive Magistrate by the Tehsildar for the purpose of recording dying declarations. PW-1 Dayaram Salave is the person who recorded the second dying declaration. The second dying declaration is to the same effect though specific role has not been assigned to the appellants as in the first dying declaration. There is, however, nothing inconsistent between the two dying declarations. The case of the prosecution is that later relatives of the deceased on coming to know of the incident came to see her at the hospital. From the record it appears that they came about 9.30 a.m.. PWs 2, 3, 4 and 6 were amongst the relatives who came to the hospital and in whose presence the deceased is stated to have made an oral dying declaration on the same lines as was stated in the first dying declaration before PSI PW-9.
The prosecution also examined PWs 7 and 8, the neighbourers who had helped in extinguishing the fire. Both these witnesses were declared hostile since they resiled from their earlier statements made in the course of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. We also attach no weight to their evidence.

;


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