[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.318 OF 2008 Shri.Bhaidas Baburao Magare ..Applicant Vs. Chandrakant Ramesh Shelar and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.K.Shinde advocate along with Mr.Sagar Kasar Advocate for Applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State Mr.Jayendra Khairnar Advocate for Respondent no.2 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant, the learned advocate for the respondent-original accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are facing prosecution in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2004. In the said case, charge came to be framed under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. The prayer of the applicant is that the charge under Section 306 of [-2-] IPC has been wrongly framed and in fact charge should have been framed under Section 302 of IPC, hence it is prayed that the said charge under Section 306 of IPC be altered to Section 302 of IPC or alternate charge be framed under Section 302 of IPC. 3. In support of the contention that case is made out under section 302, the learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 7 Dr.Baviskar to the effect that respondent no.1 who was the husband of Ujwala, had admitted Ujwala in the hospital. He submitted that this shows that respondent no.1 was present in the house when the incident occurred. Even assuming that the respondent no.1 was present in the house when the incident occurred, there is no material to show that the case would fall under Section 302 of IPC. 4. In the present case, all the witnesses have been examined and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded and now the matter is kept for judgment. Dying declarations of Ujwala came to be recorded. In none of the dying declarations, Ujwala has [-3-] stated that any of the accused persons set her on fire. In the dying declarations, Ujwala has stated that she sustained burn injuries due to accident. In fact, evidence especially that of P.W.3 Dr. Hemant Gadri shows that Ujwala told him that while filling kerosene in the lamp, she caught fire. 5. It is pertinent to note that in the FIR Exh.27, the applicant who is the father of Ujwala, has specifically stated that his daughter being fed up of the mental and physical harassment, poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. Thus, it is seen that the applicant who is the father of the deceased, has not stated anything about the murder of Ujwala but his case is that his daughter Ujwala committed suicide. Similarly, PW 5 Shashikant who is brother of Ujwala has also not stated that any of the accused persons murdered his sister. Thus, it is seen that there is no material on record for framing of alternate charge under Section 302 of IPC or altering charge under Section 306 of IPC to Section 302 of IPC. 6. As far as offence under Section 306 of IPC is concerned there was some material before the [-4-] learned Sessions Judge due to which he has rightly framed charge under Section 306 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application for framing of alternate charge under section 302 of IPC or altering charge under Section 306 to Section 302 of IPC. In the facts of the present case, no case is made out for interference, hence, application is rejected. 7. The learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any of the observations in this order while deciding the trial. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]