1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant. vs. Jalil Dastagir Jamdar, age-36 yrs. R/o. Opposite Modern Highschool, Ichalkaranji, Tal-Hatkanagale, Dist. Kolhapur .... Respondent. (Orig. Accused) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 1991 The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant. vs. Jalil Dastagir Jamdar, age-36 yrs. R/o. Opposite Modern Highschool, Ichalkaranji, Tal-Hatkanagale, Dist. Kolhapur .... Respondent. (Orig. Accused) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 548 OF 1991 Jalil Dastagir Jamdar, age-36 yrs. R/o. Opposite Modern High School, Ichalkaranji, Tal-Hatkanagale, Dist. Kolhapur. ... Appellant. (Orig. Accused) 2 vs. The State of Maharashtra. .... Respondent. (Orig. Accused) Mr. H.J. Dhedia, APP for the State. Ms. S.D. Khot with Ms. Ameeta Kuttikushnan & Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy i/by Nitin Pradhan for Respondents in Cri App.Nos. 53/91 & 94/91 and for Appellant in Cri.App. No. 548/91. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & RAJESH G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 27th AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D.B. BHOSALE, J.) : These three appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.1990 rendered by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1989. The respondent-accused was charged and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and sentenced him to suffer RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer RI for three months. He has also been convicted for the offence 3 punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to suffer RI for three months. 2. The first two appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1991 and Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1991, are filed by the State. Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1991 is filed against the order of acquittal under Section 302 of IPC whereas Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1991 is for enhancement of the sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 1991 has been filed by the accused against the order of conviction. 3. We have perused the judgment so also the evidence on record. There is no dispute that the accused Jalil Jamadar has undergone one year and 20 days imprisonment during the pendency of the trial and this appeal. He was tried for the offence under Sections 498A and 302 IPC on the allegations that he subjected his wife to cruelty and during the intervening night between 18.2.1989 and 19.2.1989, poured kerosene and set her ablaze. She died of 90% burn injuries. There is no dispute that after setting the deceased abalze, the accused tried to extinguish the fire and in that process he also sustained 30% burn injuries. It has also come on record that after setting the deceased on fire, he also started shouting for help. The Trial Court in the 4 impugned judgment has observed that the incident occurred in a fit of rage. We have perused the dying declaration of the deceased, which was treated as complaint in the present case. The deceased also stated that after setting her on fire, the accused tried to extinguish the fire and in that attempt he sustained burn injuries. The trial Court has also observed that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. In view thereof, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that she has no objection for confirming the order of conviction under Section 498-A and 304 Part II by reducing the sentence to undergone. The learned APP also fairly submitted that in view of the passage of 20 years time from the date of incident, if this Court is inclined to confirm the order of conviction and reduce the sentence to undergone the amount of fine may be enhanced substantially. 4. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the entire evidence on record. Keeping that in view and considering the passage of time, we dispose of the appeals by the following order :- i. We confirm the order of conviction under Section 498-A and 304 Part II of IPC and reduce the sentence to undergone and direct the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 5 60,000/- within a period of four months from today and in default to suffer RI for a period of one year. If the amount of fine is paid by the accused, out of the said amount Rs. 50,000/- are directed to be paid to the son of the deceased within a period of five months from today. The Sessions Court shall ensure that if the fine is deposited, Rs. 50,000/- therefrom, as aforementioned, are paid to the son of the deceased with the help of the local police station. ii. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 1991 is partly allowed in terms of this order. Criminal Appeal Nos. 53 of 1991 and 54 of 1991 are dismissed as not pressed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned District and Sessions Judge and to the concerned police station within a period of four weeks from today. The learned advocate on record for the accused is also directed to communicate this order to the accused within four weeks from today. (D.B. BHOSALE,J.) (RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)