TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red kerosene on the deceased from the kerosene lamp and also threw the lighted matchstick on the deceased to set her on fire, he must have intended to cause the death of the deceased - When there is clear evidence as to the act of the accused to set the deceased on fire, absence of pre-meditation will not reduce the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Likewise, pouring of water will not mitigate the gravity of the offence. Upon analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, courts below recorded concurrent findings that the accused caused the death of deceased Saraswatibai and convicted the Appellant. It is well settled that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless the findings are perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record - the appeal fails and is dismissed. - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 5741/2013) - - - Dated:- 21-4-2015 - T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ. For the Appellant : Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Sushil Karanjkar, Dharmendra Kishor and Aniruddha P. Mayee, Advs. JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, J. 1. Leave gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the death of Saraswatibai, the FIR was altered to Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Dr. Satish Udaybhanu Padhan-PW 8 conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Saraswatibai and issued Ex. 22-Post Mortem certificate. PW 8 opined that the deceased died due to shock and septicaemia caused by 60% burn injuries. Inquest was held and on completion and further investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, in the trial court prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited documents and material objects. The Appellant was questioned Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and the Appellant denied all of them. The Appellant pleaded that the fire was accidental and during his questioning Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he filed Ex. 34-his statement of defence. Upon consideration of the evidence, trial court held that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹ 1000/- with defa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW 3-Sindhu Sunil Ingole (sister-in-law) of the deceased. PW 1-Raju Janrao Gavai, neighbour of the deceased who accompanied the deceased to the hospital to whom the deceased is said to have made a statement about the overt act of the accused, had only stated that the deceased told him that the accused beat her and also kicked her. PW 1 had not supported the statement of deceased in the dying declaration that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. However, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused by Ex. 1-dying declaration and the oral evidence of mother (PW 2) and sister-in-law (PW 3) and the same cannot be doubted. 9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that there was no pre-meditation and the Appellant had poured kerosene from the lamp nearby and thereafter the Appellant attempted to extinguish the fire by pouring water on her and himself getting burn injuries in the process. It was submitted that the conduct of the Appellant in trying to extinguish the fire immediately after the incident would clearly show that there was no intention on the part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the act of causing injury so imminently dangerous where it will in all probability cause death. Any person of average intelligence would have the knowledge that pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that in all probability such an act would cause injuries causing death. 13. Insofar as the conduct of the accused in attempting to extinguish fire, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kalu Ram's case (supra), it was contended that such conduct of the accused would bring down the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Kalu Ram's case (supra), the accused was having two wives. The accused in a highly inebriated condition asked his wife to part with her ornaments so that he could purchase more liquor, which led to an altercation when the wife refused to do as demanded. Infuriated by the fact that his wife had failed to concede to his demands, the accused poured kerosene on her and gave her a matchbox to set herself on fire. On her failure to light the matchstick, the accused set her ablaze. But when he realized that the fire was flaring up, he threw water on her person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh punishment. Unfortunately, what is happening in our society is that out of lust for money people are often demanding dowry and after extracting as much money as they can they kill the wife and marry again and then again they commit the murder of their wife for the same purpose. This is because of total commercialisation of our society, and lust for money which induces people to commit murder of the wife. The time has come when we have to stamp out this evil from our society, with an iron hand. 17. Upon analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, courts below recorded concurrent findings that the accused caused the death of deceased Saraswatibai and convicted the Appellant. It is well settled that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless the findings are perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. This view has been reiterated in Dhananjay Shanker Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 596. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, in our view, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and we see no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
