( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 1998 Venkat s/o. Narad Gadekar, .. Appellant Age. 28 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Village Taka, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2) Tulsabai w/o. Venkatrao Gadekar, Age. 23 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Karla, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. Shri A.B. Tele, Advocate for the appellant. Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 18.11.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by original accused No. 1 – Venkat Narad Gadekar, who is convicted of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (For short “I.P.C.”). The appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of ( 2 ) Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. For offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C., the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to under go rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Originally five accused were put on trial. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers and accused Nos. 4 and 5 are parents of the appellant. They are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A read with 34 of the I.P.C. 3. Briefly stated it is prosecution case that on 31.12.1996 P.W.7-Pratap lodged complaint stating that his sister P.W.5–Tulsabai married the appellant 2 ½ years earlier. After marriage, for two months P.W.5-Tulsabai was treated well and thereafter she was physically and mentally illtreated by the accused by beating and abusing for bringing Rs. 25,000/- from her parents. P.W.5-Tulsabai used to complain about said illtreatment and demand whenever she came to her parental house. Due to poor financial condition, her ( 3 ) parents could not satisfy the demand. On 29.12.1996 at about 9.00 a.m. one Gorakh Gore, who was husband of sister of wife of P.W.7-Pratap, came and told him that his sister P.W.5- Tulsabai was put on fire by the appellant on 28.12.1996 and she was admitted in the hospital. Therefore, along with said Gorakh Gore, P.W.7-Pratap came to the Government Hospital at Latur. He met P.W.5-Tulsabai, who had sustained burn injuries. When asked, P.W.5-Tulsabai told that on 28.12.1996 at about 4.30 a.m. the appellant poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and thus attempted to kill her. On the basis of this complaint, crime was registered. Thereafter, Police carried out investigation. They drew spot panchanama. They recorded statements of various witnesses including P.W.5-Tulsabai and finally sent charge-sheet. 4. Relying on the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Court convicted the appellant and acquitted original accused Nos. 2 to 5, as aforesaid. It is this judgment and order, which is challenged in this appeal by accused No.1. 5. The main witness in this case is P.W.5-Tulsabai. ( 4 ) She is examined at Exh. 22. She stated that her marriage took place on 04.06.1994. After the marriage for two months she was treated well by the appellant. Later on, the appellant started demanding Rs. 25,000/-. Since the amount was not paid, the appellant used to beat her. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also abusing her. She suffered the illtreatment for two years. During that period, whenever she went to her parental house at Karla, she used to narrate all the incidents to her parents, brother and sisters. Sometimes appellant used to come to Karla. He had come there 2-3 times. At that time the parents of P.W.5-Tulsabai advised the appellant to behave properly. P.W.5-Tulsabai further proved letter Exh.24 as the letter sent by her to her parents. 6. According to P.W.5-Tulsabai the incident took place on 28.12.1996. On day prior to the day of the incident, her husband had beaten her for Rs. 25,000/-. Then she slept in the kitchen at night. Her husband slept in the sitting room. Her father-in-law was also sleeping in the kitchen. One side of kitchen was open. At about 4.00 a.m. her huaband asked her to warm water. Accordingly, P.W.5-Tulsabai kept water ( 5 ) for warming and again went for sleeping. Thereafter, the appellant started beating P.W.5-Tulsabai for not doing work and sleeping. The appellant took out kerosene and poured it on the person of P.W.5-Tulsabai and set her on fire. As a result, she sustained burn injuries. She proved Article No.1 – Saree, Article No.2 – Blouse, as the articles which were on her person. According to her, accused No.4-who is her father-in-law came, on hearing cries came there and extinguished fire with blanket, which is article No.3. Accused No.4 even asked the appellant why he he had done said act. Thereafter, neighbours Sambha Barber and his wife Ratnabai etc. came and then P.W.5-Tulsabai was taken to hospital at Ausa in a Jeep. She was accompanied by accused No.2 Ratnabai and Sambhaji. Thereafter, P.W.5-Tulsabai was taken to hospital at Latur. On 31.12.1996 her parents came. P.W.5-Tulsabai was in the hospital for one month. 7. It is argued before this Court that no witness other than interested persons. Thus, Sambhaji Babar, who is also known as Sambhaji Yadav and who had come at the earliest was not examined. Similarly, Gorakh Gore, who went and informed the incident No. P.W.7-Pratap, is not examined. ( 6 ) There is no other independent witness. All are interested witnesses. In the cross-examination of P.W.5- Tulsabai, it has come on record that Gorakh Gore was husband of sister of accused Nos. 1 to 3. So, he was closely related to accused and that is the reason why he was not examined. It is true that Sambhaji Yadav is not examined, but his wife Ratnabai is examined as P.W.8 at Exh. 32 and she turned hostile. 8. Letter Exh.24 is sent by P.W.5-Tulsabai to her parents. Its contents are to the effect that her parents should pay amount of Rs. 25000/- and her clothes before following Friday. She further threatened that she would wait till Saturday evening, otherwise she would take her own decision. She also stated that there should not be any doubt about that. She further added that her brother Bhausaheb, had taken Rs. 4000/- - Rs. 5000/- and ran away from the house of appellant and some action regarding the same should be taken. Then, it is again said that P.W.5-Tulsabai would wait till evening of Saturday i.e. 6th December, 1996, otherwise she would commit suicide. It is argued before me that this letter does not bear any date. But one thing is clear that this letter was written in the week prior to 06.12.1996. The ( 7 ) letter was produced before police on 01.01.1997. So, it was produced on the next day after the complaint was lodged. It is argued before me that evidence of P.W.1-Siddheshwar shows that the letter with envelope was produced in the hospital. That is mentioned in the panchanama Exh.18 itself. The Trial Court found the letter reliable. 9. Cross-examination of P.W.5-Tulsabai further discloses that, in-fact, Shivaji @ Bhausaheb, who was brother of Tulsabai was paid Rs. 4000/- - Rs. 5000/- by the appellant, and the appellant & members of his family were insisting on repayment of said amount by Shivaji @ Bhausaheb. Said cross-examination para 5 of P.W.5-Tulsabai further corroborates statement in the letter regarding amount of Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- taken by brother Shivaji @ Bhausaheb. It is admitted by P.W.5-Tulsabai that in Exh.24, there is no reference to beating and illtreatment. One thing is clear that due to non-satisfaction of demand of Rs. 25,000/-, she was on the verge of committing suicide. The letter also shows that life of P.W5-Tulsabai must not be happy and therefore she said that if amount was not paid, she would commit suicide. Nobody would have thought of committing ( 8 ) suicide, unless life was not happy and bearable., though, in Exh.24, there is no reference to illtreatment. Moreover, it is not case of the accused in defence that the incident was an attempt of suicide. The accused say that it was accidental fire. But, in that case P.W.5-Tulsabai and her relatives would not have lodged complaint against the accused. In para 7 it is brought on record that the doctor has not asked anything to Tulsabai regarding the incident, but it was accused No.2 Govind, who told the doctor that Tulsabai had got fire while heating water. P.W.5-Tulsabai denied that she told Doctor that she suffered accidental injuries while heating the water. 10. Evidence of P.W.6-Dr. Gous Pasha at Exh.25 shows that history was given by accused No.2-Govind that the burns were caused while igniting Chullah. The doctor also stated that P.W.5-Tulsabai had sustained 31% burn injuries. There were burns on her chest, abdomen, back, right upper extremity and left upper extremity. He proved medical certificate which is at Exh.26. 11. P.W.5-Tulsabai was also confronted with portion “A” ( 9 ) of her statement before police. Tulsabai said that it was not true. According to said portion, it was accused No.2 Govind, who had given threat to Tulsabai to tell in the hospital that while lighting Chullah, she sustained burn injuries and due to said threats, she said so in the hospital at Ausa. But, such statement even assuming to be true is only going to help the prosecution in strengthening its case. 12. Evidence of P.W.5-Tulsabai is further supported by P.W.2-Dattatray, who is her brother, P.W.3-Manik who is her father, P.W.4-Rukminibai, who is her sister and P.W.7-Pratap who is brother of Tulsabai. It is true that said sister, brothers and parents are close relatives of Tulsabai. All of them stated that Tulsabai attempted to commit suicide due to illtreatment for non-payment of amount. Merely because the witnesses were closely related to P.W.5-Tulsabai, that cannot be sole reason to discard evidence. 13. The learned advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to panchanama Exh. 15 drawn on 01.01.1997. It may be noted that the incident had taken place in the early hours of 28.12.1996. It is also clear from the panchanama that the ( 10 ) place where the incident had occurred was smeared with cow dung and cleaned. There was nothing lying at that place. That was the place shown by accused No.4-Narad. Panchanama Exh.16 is panchanama of attachment of Saree & Blouse of P.W. 5-Tulsabai and the blanket used in extinguishing fire. Said articles were produced by accused No.4 – Narad. It is argued before me that there was no kerosene on the clothes. It is true that the clothes were not sent to Chemical Analyser and in seizure panchanama it is not mentioned that they were smelling of kerosene, but clothes and blanket were attached under panchanama dated 02.01.1997, which was drawn on 5th day after the incident. Moreover, both blouse and Saree were completely burnt and there were few remnants. 14. Having given anxious consideration to the every aspects argued before this Court, in my opinion, this is a case where it is established that the appellant has attempted to commit murder of his wife for satisfaction of demand of money. The learned advocate for the appellant alternatively argued that the appellant was in jail for one year from 07.01.1997 to 05.01.1998 and said period may be treated as sufficient punishment. However, having regard to the gravity ( 11 ) of the offence, in my opinion, already sufficient leniency is shown by the Trial Court and there is no further scope for leniency. 15. Considering totality of the circumstances, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 05.01.1998, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No.96 of 1997, is hereby confirmed. The appellant to surrender to his bail forthwith for undergoing remaining sentence. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crap18.98