Raju Devade vs State Of Maharashtra

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is, Baby a girl of 18 years was residing at Mehkar with her parents, sister and brother. On 04.03.1989 in late evening, she was alone at house. Her parents had gone out and her brother and sister had gone to watch an evening movie. At about 9.30 pm when her brother Dilawarsha returned to the house from movie, he saw Baby in flames in bushes near the house. Dilawarsha used a quilt to put off the fire and thereafter on a push-cart took Baby to Rural Hospital, Mehkar. There being no doctor available, waterman Narayan Mahure and maid-servant Smt. Magar took the Baby in the hospital and cleaned her wounds and administered I. V. saline.

3. Police Sub-Inspector Meghrajani immediately came to the hospital and met the Baby. Baby gave a statement before the police Sub-Inspector that she was having a love affair with one Raju who was residing nearby. She was pregnant, she had pregnancy of two months but the same was aborted. She asked Raju to marry her. At 9.00 pm she saw Raju in the bye-lane by side of her house. On seeing him she again asked him to marry her. Raju poured kerosene on her person and then set her on fire with a burning match- stick. Police Sub-Inspector recorded the oral statement on which left thumb impression of Baby was also put.

4. On the basis of the above oral statement, a case No. 63/89 was registered for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. On a requisition sent by Police Sub-Inspector one Ramesh Giri the Executive Magistrate, Mehkar came to the Rural Hospital and in the presence of two employees of the Rural Hospital Narayan Mahure and Smt. Magar recorded the dying declaration of the Baby. Baby had also put her thumb impression on the dying declaration.

5. The Executive Magistrate sealed the dying declaration and sent it to the police. After recording the dying declaration Baby was shifted to the District Hospital, Buldhana. On 05.03.1989 one another Executive Magistrate, namely, Narayan Tandale came to hospital and recorded a dying declaration in his own words. In the statement it was noted that due to burns thumb impression could not be put by Baby.

6. On 9.03.1989 Baby died in the hospital. On the same day one doctor, Ashok Surushe, Medical Officer conducted autopsy on the dead body. The criminal case was converted under Section 302 IPC. Accused was put on trial before the Sessions Judge. Prosecution produced seven witnesses and certain documentary evidences. On behalf of the defence only one witness, Shri Narayan Tandale Naib Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate was produced.

12. PW 5 S. K. Manwar did not support the panchnama of the spot. As per the dying declaration of Baby, she was married to the accused four/five months before whereas PW 4 Dilawarsha has stated that accused was not married with Baby.

34. The doctor in her statement has recorded about 72 per cent burns. The theory of burn being caused by chimney (burning lamp) has rightly been rejected by courts below by giving cogent reasons.

38. Oral statement of victim was recorded by the police on 04.03.1989 which followed by recording of dying declaration by the Executive Magistrate in which same statement was made by victim implicating the accused of the crime. In the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction has rightly been recorded relying on the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by Executive Magistrate Giri.

39. The death has been caused by burn injuries, which is proved on record. The theory put up by the defence that it was accidental death having been rightly rejected and the prosecution by cogent evidences having proved the prosecution case both Sessions Judge and the High Court have rightly convicted the accused of offence under Section 302 IPC. We do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

JUNE 29, 2016.