Sampat Babso Kale vs The State Of Maharashtra

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the Appellant No. 2, Tarabai Dhanaji Dhaigude is the sister of the Appellant No. 1, Sampat 2 Babso Kale. Appellant No. 1, was married to Sharada Sampat Kale on 25.04.1987. After residing for about one year at Thergaon, Chinchwad, they shifted to a quarter in MIDC Colony, Chinchwad. Sharada died of burn injuries suffered during the night intervening 08.07.1989 and 09.07.1989 in the wee hours of the morning of 09.07.1989. It is also not disputed that on the date of the occurrence, the Appellant No. 2 had come to stay at the house of her brother i.e. the Appellant No. 1. Burn injuries were to the extent of 98%. Sharada made two dying declarations – the first was in the nature of the information given to Dr. Sanjeev Chibbar (PW­5), who had attended upon her when she was admitted to the hospital and the second was a formal dying declaration made to Mr. Kamlakar Adhav, Special Judicial Magistrate, Pune (PW­2).

3. The prosecution story is that relations between husband and wife were cordial for about one and a half years. Thereafter, Appellant No. 1 started ill treating his wife since she could not conceive. It is also alleged that, in fact, he wanted to marry again even when Sharada was alive. For this reason, he and his sister 3 had with common intention poured kerosene on Sharada and set her on fire.

4. The defence version is that Sharada belongs to a comparatively well­off family. She was residing with her husband in MIDC Colony quarter which had all facilities. The case set up by the defence is that the parents of the appellants lived in a small one room hut in village Lonand with no facilities of toilet etc.. Appellant No.1 wanted that his wife should go to look after his parents. She was not willing to do so since material comforts like TV, WC, etc. were not available in the village and the parents lived in a very small one room hutment. According to the defence, on the evening of 08.07.1989, both the appellants requested Sharada to go to the village to look after the ageing parents. Sharada, who was sensitive, got upset and for this reason committed suicide. It was Appellant No. 1 who raised an alarm and tried to douse the fire by throwing water on Sharada. He requested the neighbours to call for an ambulance but when nobody could be contacted on phone, he along with one neighbour went to the hospital to get an ambulance. Thereafter, Sharada was taken to Sassoon Hospital, Pune where she was 4 admitted in the Burns Ward. Unfortunately, she passed away in the morning.

5. The accused were charged and tried for the murder of Sharada. The trial court acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt mainly on the ground that the possibility of the deceased having committed suicide could not be ruled out. The trial court did not rely upon the dying declarations. On the other hand, the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no reason to discredit the dying declarations and held that dying declarations were totally reliable in view of the testimonies of PW­2 and PW­5. The High Court held that the reasoning given by the trial court was perverse and thereafter, allowed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals.

16. The two accused filed separate written statements under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’ for short). The defence, as pointed out above, was that the deceased was not willing to go to the village to look after her in­laws and, therefore, she committed suicide. The defence cannot be brushed aside.

21. In view of the above, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court.

22. Appellant No. 1 is stated to be in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appellant No. 2 is on bail. Her bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.