Dixit v. The State of Maharashtra

Mr. Sandesh Patil i/b. Mr. P.P. Jadhav for the Applicant. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP, for the Respondent­State. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A.M. THIPSAY, J.J. DATE : 8 TH APRIL, 2011. P.C. :

Heard Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Pai, the learned APP, appears for the respondent­State of Maharashtra.

In Sessions Case No.42 of 2008 the accused has been convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the said order is under challenge in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2011 which has been admitted by us on 1st April, 2011. By this application, the applicant­accused prays for being released on bail by suspending the order of sentence. Dixit 2 APPA/413/2011

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel, submitted that though the incident had taken place on 24th July, 2008, the applicant came to be arrested for the first time on 21st August, 2008 and was released on bail on 18th October, 2008. There was nothing adverse reported against him during the period he was on bail while the trial was pending. He also submitted that the prosecution case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence and the accused came to be roped in without there being any evidence regarding his complicity in the same.

As per the prosecution, on 24th July, 2008 the deceased Ashatai while in her house sustained burn injuries and she was taken to the hospital, where she died on account of the said injuries. The prosecution examined nine witnesses and undoubtedly there is no eye witness to the incident. The trial Court considered the following circumstances against the applicant : (a). Homicidal death of deceased Ashatai caused by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire. (b). Prior to the incident, Laxmi Golden Haar (Golden Chain) given by the deceased Ashatai to the accused for getting money which he declined to return and threatened to kill her. Dixit 3 APPA/413/2011 (c). Recovery of the said Golden Chain at the instance of the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (d). Disclosure by deceased Ashatai to her brother (PW­1) and Uncle (PW­2) about non returning the Golden Chain and the threats given by the accused to her prior to the incident. (e). Conduct of the accused soon after the incident. (f). Scene of incident described in Spot Panchanama in consonance with the defence of accused.

It is also noted by the trial Court that the accused was present at the spot when the incident had taken place and he had sustained 45% burn injuries as per the injury certificate at Exhibit­55 issued by the Primary Health Centre, Kokrud and Shirala Primary Health Centre, where he was treated. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he had stated that while he was passing in front of the house of the deceased, there was hue and cry and people had gathered and hence he had gone to the house of the deceased and tried to Dixit 4 APPA/413/2011 extinguish the fire and at that time he had sustained burn injuries as his clothes caught fire while extinguishing the fire. He further stated that after the incident, along with his friend he had gone on motorcycle to the Shedgewadi Phata and became unconscious and from there he was taken to the hospital. It has also come on record that the applicant was absconding.

Having regard to the evidence as well as the circumstances considered by the trial Court, in our prima facie considerations, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to release the applicant on bail pending the Appeal, despite the fact that he was on bail during the trial.

Hence, the application is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]

[B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]