1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.307/1999. Narmada w/o Biru Jadkar Age: 54 Yrs., occu. Household, r/o Murud (Bk.) Tq. and District Latur. - PETITIONER (Orig.Accused No.1) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.NP Patil-Jamalpurkar, Adv. for Petitioner. Mr.VD Godbharale APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22nd September, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned APP for State. 2) The conviction for an offence in terms of Section 324 and 498A of IPC, recorded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.95/1990 was tested before the learned Sessions Judge at Latur in Criminal 2 Appeal No.37/1990. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 21.7.1999 dismissed the appeal. 3) The factual matrix of the matter are, Meena Popat Jadkar, married before 2 years, filed a complaint that she was ill-treated by her mother-in-law Narmada and sister-in-law Sindhu Bansode. She was suspected for chastity and consequently subjected to illtreatment. The accused/applicant - Narmada broke her Mangalsutra and said as to why she wrote a letter at parental place to her mother and quarreled with her, she was driven away. 4) Narmada, it is alleged, on 12.12.1989 doused kerosene on said Meena and set her on fire, however, it was extinguished and she survived, though there were burn injuries having permanent scars on her. The spot panchanama dated 12.12.1989 (Exhibit-19) displayed the horrifying situation at the room. The prosecution against 3 the accused/applicant was in terms of Section 324 of IPC, coupled with Section 498A thereof. 5) The assessment of evidence of Meena (PW. 3), carried by both the Courts, coupled with the Injury Certificate, cannot be said to be exorbitant or imaginary to the legal position. The inhuman treatment meted to the victim - Meena is espoused by her in explaining plight. Medical Officer states, on 12.12.1989 she was brought by her husband in the hospital and found following injuries : (1) Burns – Superficial burns on upper part of abdomen in between umbilical and epigastric region transverse extending from right hypochondriac region to left Hypochondriac region – 2” breadth, Blisters at the center, erythema on side. Size of 2” X right hypochondriac region to left hypochondriac region. (2) Burn – Blister on base of thumb on palmer side of right hand size of the injury is 1” X 1/2”. (3) Burns – Blister at base of thumb of left hand on palmer side, size – 1/2” X 1/2”. (4) Erythema on right fore-arm medially at middle part oval shaped. size – 1” X 1” 4 (5) Burns – Blister at tip of ring finger of right hand on palmer side. size – 1/4” X 1/4”. (6) Burns – Blister at tip of little finger palmer side of left hand 1/4” X 1/4” 6) Meena has explained, how Narmada was ill-treating her and caused burn injuries. It was, with sheer greed for dowry, the accused has intentionally caused hurt to Meena. 7) The conviction recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, directing Narmada to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, with default clause, for an offence under Section 324 IPC, cannot be said to be erroneous or at a higher pedestal. The same was rightly analyzed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Latur, while delivering the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.31/1990. 8) At this stage, Mr. Patil learned Counsel 5 urged to consider the age of accused/petitioner – Narmada, she being now 70 years, and concession to be given to her for the period undergone during trial. However, considering the age of the accused – Narmada and the turmoil she has undergone of the litigation including imprisonment, since Section 324 of IPC provides maximum term of imprisonment to three years including fine, the sentence of three years imposed by the learned Judge is reduced to the period of two years (two years). Other term shall remain unaltered. 9) The accused to surrender before the concerned up to 5th November, 2009, failure to do so to be followed with necessary warrants. 10) Rule is partly made absolute as above. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv307.99