A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Nitin W Sambre and Justice RN Ladha recently upheld conviction of a man while noting that the act of setting ablaze his wife and not extinguishing the fire shows the intention and knowledge of the husband.
The High Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Sessions Court convicting a man for pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire. On hearing the screams, the neighbors came and extinguished the fire. After the wife was taken to the hospital and was being treated, the wife gave her statement to the police and said that her husband/accused poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. A case under section 307 was registered against the husband. The wife, however, was succumbed to injuries and the case was then converted to a case to Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court did not examine the evidence from a proper perspective. Further, he submitted that the trial Court has misread the prosecution evidence and was influenced by several assumptions which cannot be sustained based on the material on record, and this has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
The Additional Prosecutor argued that the deceased had narrated a detailed incident, which is amply corroborated by the medical evidence, wherein she had explicitly named the appellant as a culprit. She also submitted that the conviction in a murder case is based on a truthful dying declaration, even made to the Police Officer and not to the Magistrate, sufficient to convict the accused.
The court in its order noted that the accused not extinguishing the fire shows the intention and knowledge of the husband. The order reads, “In the present case, the act of the accused of pouring the kerosene oil on the person of the deceased, setting her ablaze and not extinguishing the fire would speak entirely against him and demonstrates the intention and knowledge on the part of the Appellant.”
The Division bench said that the manner of retaliation by the husband was also disproportionate. The order states, “The deceased was the wife of the Appellant and was alone in the house. The Appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation and acted cruelly. Even if the incident in question was not premeditated and sudden, the manner of retaliation is disproportionate.”
While upholding the order of the Sessions Judge, the high court said, “The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment has rightly observed that the act of the accused in setting ablaze the deceased was an intentional act for causing her death, and it was preceded by threats emanated from him that he would not let her alive. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, it can be said that the offence would not be murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment