1 Ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 609 of 2007 Sanjay Bhila Mandawade, age 26 years, resident of Umrane, Tal Deola, District Nasik, (at present serving the sentence of R.I. At Central Jail, Nasik. .. Appellant. Ori. Accused. vs. The State of Maharashtra, Through Taluka Police Station, Malegaon, District Nasik. ..Respondent. Mr P.D. Jadhav, for the appellant- absent. Mrs M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J. DATE : 08TH JUNE,2009. ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1. Present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant- accused no.1 challenging the judgment and order dated 15.5.2007 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District 2 Nasik. By the said impugned judgment and order only present appellant  accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer R.I.,for three years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further R.I., for three months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I.,for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default further R.I., for one month. Directions were given for substantive sentences to run concurrently. Original accused Nos. 2 to 4, relatives of accused no.1, were acquitted of both the charges read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Today, it is taken up for final hearing. When after waiting till second sitting none appeared for the appellant-accused who is in jail. The said accused is represented by his Advocate Shri Prashant Jadhav. The respondent-State of Maharashtra is represented by learned A.P.P. Mrs M. H. Mhatre. 3. Perused the appeal memo, also perused R and P of the matter and specifically depositions of four witnesses i.e.,the injured complainant, wife of the appellant- accused no.1, one Raghunath Borse, panch regarding scene of offence panchnama, where the complainant was set on fire by the appellant  accused no.1 by pouring kerosene on her person and ignited her at their own 3 house, P.W.3 Dr Chavan who examined the injured P.W.1 and found burn injuries and accordingly issued medical certificate. Last prosecution witness P.W.4 is A.P.I., Ghule (Investigating Officer). Perused documentary evidence such as the panchnama, medical certificate as to total 42% burns i.e., 10% burns on head and neck, 18% burns on chest and abdomen and 14% burns on the back of P.W.1. Also perused the C.A.,report as to finding of kerosene in the articles seized from the house of the accused. Though there is no opportunity to this Court to hear the arguments on behalf of the appellant, all such written submissions are found in the appeal memo in which it is specifically alleged that the Trial Sessions Court had wrongly appreciated the evidence brought before it. It is also ascertained from the grounds of appeal memo that one of the grounds mentioned indicate that P.W.1 complainant had herself ignited and set herself on fire after the appellant poured kerosene on her person. This point mentioned in the appeal memo shall be dealt with in detail herein at the appropriate stage, in order to ascertain the veracity of the said submission. 4. It is a matter in which only four witnesses were examined as detailed above and what was weighed with the Trial Sessions Court was the substantive evidence of P.W.1, wife of the accused no.1. The F.I.R., is given by the said injured P.W.1 immediately during her treatment at the hospital and it was so recorded on 18.4.2006 whereas the incident of burning took place 4 on the night on 17.4.2006 at the house of accused no.1 and his wife P.W.1. Again, it must be said that the Trial Sessions Court was weighed with the documentary evidence as to the medical certificate showing total 42% burns sustained by P.W.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P.,for the State substantive evidence of P.W.Nos. 1 and 3 is required to be scrutinized in order to ascertain whether there is anything to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellant and in order to ascertain whether there is anything to alter the said finding. 5. The substantive evidence of P.W.1 is very specific on the point as to the night of the incident. Her husband was under the influence of alcohol, poured kerosene on her person in their house and set her on fire by using ignited matchstick. Due to such assault and setting on fire, she raised shouts and as such thereafter realizing what he has done, the appellant accused no.1 tried to rescue his wife. In the mean time, other persons came in and fire was extinguished by using a quilt/Godadi. After few hours P.W.1 was removed to local hospital and it was at the instance of accused no.1. Though it was his initiation to take her to the hospital for medical treatment, his acts in itself cannot be construed to accept the defence of the accused that he had nothing to do with the incident of pouring kerosene and that it was the own act of P.W.1 to set herself on fire. At this 5 juncture, the submission as mentioned in the appeal memo is required to be dealt with. It is submission of the appellant that according to the statement of his wife P.W.1 though the accused poured kerosene on her person she set herself on fire by using a lighted matchstick. After going through the F.I.R., which is forming part of R and P it is the specific case narrated by P.W.1 that it was her husband  accused no.1 who set her on fire after he poured kerosene on her person on the fateful night. Nowhere evidence found that she herself set on fire. Considering such circumstances and considering the import of the substantive evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 attending doctor, there is nothing to accept the defence of the appellant  accused no.1, even on preponderance of probability. In other words, it must be said that here it is a case in which the evidence led before the learned Trial Sessions Court has been rightly appreciated by him so far as the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the I.P.C.,are concerned. 6. In the result, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and as such the present appeal must fail and same is accordingly disposed of with the following order. ORDER 1. Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2007 stands dismissed. A.R.JOSHI,J. 6