Dismissed

Dharmaraj Tatyaba Angarkhe v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Jul 2005APEAL/799/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On appeal against murder conviction, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision that the appellant set fire to his wife. The court relied on consistent dying declarations and forensic evidence of kerosene on the appellant's underwear.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant directed to surrender to bail and commit to prison to serve remaining sentence.

Dharmaraj Tatyaba Angarkhe Vs State of Maharashtra — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.799 OF 1997

¶3

Dharmaraj Tatyaba Angarkhe aged 46 years, resident of 131/1, Panmala Zopadpatti, Pune.

) ) )

) ..Appellant.

V/s

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

) ..Respondent.

¶9

--Shri S.S. Hardikar, advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. B.H. Mehta, APP for the State.

¶11

CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 13th July, 2005

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.C. Chavan, J.)

¶14

1.		This	appeal	by Dhar	maraj	Tatya	ba	Angarkhe	takes
exception		to	his	conviction	for	offen	ce	of	murder
punishable		under	section	302	of	the	Ind	ian Pen	al Code
and		resultant	sentence	of i	mprisonm	ent	for	life	and a
fine	of	Rs	1000/-	imposed	upon	him	by	the	learned

¶15

Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case

¶16

No.466 of 1996 before him.

¶17

A mother of four children, Moharabai, who used to support her family by gathering waste paper was done to death by the appellant - her husband, because of his addiction to liquor. On 10/10/1996, the accused, who was employed in factory, was enjoying a holiday at

¶18

:2:

¶19

his h	ome.		His wife	Moha	rabai	also	did	not	go	to
collect	waste	pa	per.	The	acc	used	qua	rrelled	with	her,
asked	her	as	to why	she	had	not	gone	to	collect	waste
paper,	and	at	about 8.00	p.m.		or	9.00	p.m,	he	asked
Moharabai	to		go to the	ho	use	of	her	mother,	who	was
residing	in	the	same area.		On	her	refu	sal to	do	so,
the	accused		poured ke	rosene	ov	er	her	person	and	set
her	on	fire	. Moh	arabai	ra	ised	cries	and	ext	inguished
fire	by	pouri	ng water	on	hers	elf.	C	hildren	awoke	and
persons	near	by	reached	on	hea	ring	c	ries.		Victim’s

¶20

mother also came there. Victim was taken to K.E.M.

¶21

Hospital at Pune.

¶22

3.	Police	were	informed and caused dying	declaration
to be	recorded	by	the Special Judicial Magistrate.	An
offence	was	register	ed. In course of	investigation,
police	arrested	the	accused and seized his	underwear,
which was	the	only	garment which he was wearing	at the
time o	f i	ncident.	They also seized	other
incriminating		articles,	recorded statements	of
witnesses	and	on	completion of investigation, s	ent the
charge-sheet	to	the	learned Judicial Magistrate,	First

¶23

Class, Pune who committed the case to the Court of

¶24

Sessions at Pune.

¶25

:3:

¶26

4.	Ch	arge of	offence	punishab	le under	section	302 of
the	Indian	Penal	Code was	fram	ed against	the	accused
by	the	Additional	Sessions	Judge,	Pune to	whom	the

¶27

case was made over. The accused pleaded not guilty to

¶28

the said charge and hence was put on trial.

¶29

5.		In course	of trial,	prose	cution	examined as	many
as	9	witnesses.	The de	fence	raised	by the accused	in
his	st	atement	under section	313	Cr.P.C	. is that	of
denial.		Upon	consideration	of	the	prosecution	case,
in	light	of def	ence raised	and	arg	uments advanced,	the
learned		Additional	Sessions	Judge	came	to hold	the
accused		guilty of	offence	punish	able	under section	302
of	the	Indian	Penal Code		and	sentenced him	to
imprison	ment	for	life and	fine	of Rs	1000/- and	in

¶30

default further R.I. for three months. Aggrieved

¶31

thereby, the accused has appealed.

¶32

6. We	have	heard the	learned	Counsel fo	r the
appellant	and the	learned	Additional	Public	Prosecutor
for the	State.	Since the	incident	occurred in	the
house of	accused,	there	are,	obviously, no	eye
witnesses	to the	incident. P	.W.	5 - Pinki,	daughter
of the	victim	and accused	was	supposed to	have
witnessed	the	quarrel between	her	parents just	before
she left	for	her grand-mother’	s place	to go to	bed.

¶33

:4:

¶34

It is		not	unnatu	ral	that	she	did	not	support	the
prosecution		case	in		respect	of	this	quarr	el,	though,
she	did	state	that	in	the	past	her	father	had	beaten
her	mother		and	de	manded	mone	y for	cons	uming	liquor,

¶35

leading to her mother’s going to her grand-mother’s place.

¶36

There is no dispute that the victim died of 89% of burn injuries as observed by Dr. Patil - P.W. 4. Notes of post-mortem examination are at Exhibit-17.

¶37

The question is who caused these burn injuries to be

¶38

inflicted on the victim?

¶39

8.		According to the prosecution	c	ase, the vic	tim	was
taken	to	the K.E.M. Hospital,	Pune	by her		mother.
She s	eems	to have been admitted	in	the hospital	by	Dr.
Selukar	w	ho was examined as P.W.	3.	Dr. Selu	kar	-
P.W.		3 stated that the patient	ca	me at about		11.00
and	was	admitted at 1.40 p.m.		The entries,		after
admission,		were made by doctor	in	her own	han	dwriting
and	she	stated that the history	was	narrated by		the
patient		herself and patient	told	her th	at	the
patient’s		husband poured kerosene		on patient’s		person
and	set	the patient on fire. Dr.	Se	lukar - P.W.		3

¶40

produced original case-paper which was marked as

¶41

Exhibit-15.

¶42

:5:

¶43

9.	The	learn	ed Co	unsel	appearing	for the	appellant
submitted	that	P.W.	3 -	Dr.	Selukar	had, in fac	t, no
occasion	to	treat	the	patient.	It	was possibly	one
Dr.	Badwe	, who	wa	s not	examined,	had treated	the
patient.		It is	true	that	in cro	ss-examination,	P.W.
3 -	Dr.	Selukar	had s	tated	that Dr.	Badwe might	be
C.M.O.	on	duty	on the	inc	idental nig	ht and might	have
informed	the	police	about	burns.	It	may be seen	from
evidence	of	P.W.	6 -	Head	Constable	T.S.	Ranvare
that	the	information	was	rec	eived that	one M	oharabai
was	admitted	in	K.E.M.		Hospital of	burn	injuries.
This	witness	admitted	in	cro	ss-examination	that he	was
informed	by	P.S.	O.	of	Swargate	Police Station	that

¶44

Dr. Badwe from K.E.M. Hospital had informed the

¶45

Police Station about the incident.

¶46

10.	P.	W. 6 - Head	Consta	ble	Ran	vare	also	admitte	d in
his	cros	s-examination that	the	inf	orm	ation	rece	ived	by
Swargate		Police Station	was	to t	he	effect		that	on
10/10/1996,		at about 9.30	p.m.		Mo	harabai	had		poured
kerosene		on her person and	set	hers	elf	on	fire.		The
learned		Counsel for the	a	ppellant		submi	tted	that	this
is	the	first information	which	was		conveyed		to	any
authority		and about which	a	record		was	made.		He,
therefore,		submitted that,	initia	lly,	s	tory	was		only

¶47

:6:

¶48

of	attempt	by	Moharabai to commit suicide. H	e	also
drew	our	attention	to cross-examination of		the
victim’s	father	Ram	a - P.W.1. This witness in	pa	ra 5
of	his	cross-ex	amination, stated that they did		not
make	complain	t ag	ainst the accused till 2.00 a.m	.	He
was,	however	, n	on-commital about the cause of		keeping
quiet	till	2.00	a.m. A suggestion which was	put	to
this	witness	(P.W.	1 - Rama) that they kept	quiet	till
2.00	a.m.	becau	se his daughter would ha	ve	been
otherwise	pro	secuted	for suicide, was not acc	epted	by
him.	The	conte	ntion of the learned Cou	nsel	for
appellant	that	the	case was, in fact, one of		suicide
and	that it	turned	into one of accusations ag	ainst	the
accused	only	after	2.00 a.m, has to be		rejected,
because	P.W.	3 -	Dr. Selukar has stated that	by	1.40
a.m.,	she was	told	by the patient that the ac	cused	had
set	her on	fire	and she had made record	of	such

¶49

statement. Therefore, there is no question of parents

¶50

of the victim changing their track after 2.00 a.m.

¶51

11.	P.W.	6	- H	ead	Constable	Tukaram	Ranvare	stated
that	on	learning	of	the	incident,	he	carried a	letter
to	Special	Judicial	Mag	istrate	Sasne	by g	oing to	the
house	of the	Magist	rate	and	handed	over	letter to	him,
copy	whereof	is	at	Ex	hibit-20.	He	took	Special
Judicial	Magis	trate	to	t	he hospital	and	asked	the

¶52

:7:

¶53

doctor	on duty whether the patient was fit	to	make
statement.	On the doctor’s certifying	that	the
patient	was conscious and in a condition	to	give
statement,	in his presence, the Magistr	ate	recorded
the	statement of the victim. He stated	that he	too
recorded	the statement of the victim,	before	the
Magistrate	had recorded the statement.	The	statement
recorded	by this witness (P.W.6 - Ranva	re) is	at
Exhibit-21	and one recorded by the Sp	ecial	Judicial
Magistrate	Shri Sasne, who was examined as	P.W.	7 is
at	Exhibit-24. In both these statements,	victim	is
consistent	that the accused poured kerosene	on	her
person	and set her on fire. P.W.	7 -	Special
Judicial	Magistrate Shri Sasne also states	that	he
took	doctor to the patient, asked the	doctor	to
examine	the patient and to state whether	the	patient
was	fit to make statement. The doc	tor a	ccordingly
examined	the patient and certified the patie	nt to	be
fit.	Then he states to have put pre	liminary	questions

¶54

for his own satisfaction and proceeded to record the

¶55

statement.

¶56

12.	The	learned	counsel	for	the	appellant	made a
feeble	attempt	to	submit	that	the	dying	declaration
recorded	by	P.W.	7	- Sp	ecial	Judicial	Magistrate
Sasne	was	unrelia	ble bec	ause	relati	ves were	present

¶57

:8:

¶58

when	the dying	declaration was recorded. P.W	.	1 -
Rama	had und	oubtedly stated in his	cross-e	xamination
that, in	his prese	nce, P.S.I. came and	took	statement
of his	daughter	Moharabai. He also	stated	that
another	Saheb also	recorded statement of	his	daughter.
He st	ated that	during the whole night his	wife,	his
other	daughter	& her husband were with	the	victim.
But	it does	not follow from these isol	ated	statements
that the	relatives	were present at the	tim	e of
recording	of dying	declaration. P.W. 1	-	Rama
himself	in the	same para 4 of his	cross-e	xamination
has stated	that he	did not know whether at	the	time of
recording	of dy	ing declaration by an	other	Saheb,
P.S.I.	was present	or not because he had	himse	lf gone
downstairs.	P.W.	7 - Special Judicia	l	Magistrate
Sasne	has stat	ed in para 4 of his	cross-e	xamination
that n	o relatives	of patient were in room.	There	is

¶59

no reason to disbelieve this disinterested word of the

¶60

Special Judicial Magistrate.

¶61

13.	Dr.		P	atil	who had examine	d the	patient	at	the
time of		record	ing	of	this dying	declaratio	n	deposed	as
P.W.	9.		He	stated	that at the	request	of	the	Special
Judicial	Mag	istrate	,	he	examined the	patient		and	found
that	the		patient		was consciou	s,	oriente	d	and
responding		to	the	com	mands. He	admitted	havin	g	made

¶62

:9:

¶63

requisite endorsement on the dyin	g d	eclaration	-
Exhibit-25. His cross-examination	too,	does	not
disclose any infirmity to warrant any suspicion about recording of dying declaration.
14. In this case, the question of	tutoring	by	parents
is unlikely to arise because victim’s fath	er P.W.		1 -
Rama stated that on learning of	the	incident,	he
searched for his daughter at hospital	at		Sarasbaug
first, then at Sasoon hospital and	ultimately	he	came
to K.E.M. Hospital, Pune. Thus, by	the	tim	e he
reached, patient’s history was known	atleast	to	P.W.
3 - Dr.Selukar. The contention of	the l	earned	counsel
for the appellant about admission of	the	victim	after
her father reached and after sum of	Rs	1500/-	was
brought from the cupboard in vict	im’s	house	is

¶64

incorrect. That admission refers to admission in a

¶65

special room in the hospital.

¶66

15.	The	dying		declara	tion recorded	by	P.W.	7	-
Special		Judicial		Mag	istrate Sas	ne,	statem	ent re	corded
by	Police	Head	Con	stable	- P.W.	6	Ranvare	and	the
history	taken	down		by	P.W. 3	-	Dr	Selukar,	all
consisten	tly point	to		the	complicity	of	the	accused	in
the	incident.	Th	ere	is	no reason	why	mother	of	four
kids	will	falsely		name	her hus	band	as	the per	petrator

¶67

:10:

¶68

of ghastly act of setting her on fire if it were not

¶69

true.

¶70

The findings are fortified from the evidence of
P.W. 2 - Dada Bhalerao - a panch, in whose presence,
underwear of the accused was seized vide panchnama
Exhibit-13. P.W. 8 - Investigating Officer P.S.I.
Mohite stated that he sent the property to Forensic
Science Laboratory by his letter Exhibit-27. The
report of the Laboratory in respect of this underwear
is at Exhibit-33. It shows that kerosene residues
were found on underwear. It is not conceivable that
kerosene residues would be found on an underwear of
the accused in the process of extinguishing the fire.
Kerosene would be found only if the under wear was on
the person of the accused when he was sprinkling
kerosene. If he was away from the victim when the
victim had caught fire and went only to extinguish the
fire, where is the question of his underwear getting
stained with the kerosene? Therefore, this scientific

¶71

evidence debunks the pretences of innocence of the

¶72

accused.

¶73

17.	The	re-	appraisal	of	the	eviden	ce	done	by us	with
the	help	of	learned	Coun	sel,	leaves	us	in	no	doubt
that	the	lea	rned	trial		judge		rightly	held	the

¶74

:11:

¶75

appellant	guilt	y of	the	offence	under section	302.
The	sentence	imposed	also	does	not call for	any
interference.		Consequently	,	we dis	miss the appeal	and
direct	the	appellant	to	surrender	to his bail.	The
learned	Addit	ional	Sessions	Judge,	Pune shall	take

¶76

steps to commit the appellant to prison to serve out

¶77

his remaining sentence.

¶78

(V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.)

¶79

(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)

Dharmaraj Tatyaba Angarkhe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmaraj Tatyaba Angarkhe v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaydeep @ Papya Rajanikant Bhate Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Munna @ Munir Gaus Shaikh

Jaydeep @ Papya Rajanikant Bhate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Shambunath Pathak @ Mama

Navnath Machindra Kandhare Vs State of Maharashtra

M/S Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs the Sr.Inspector of Police Mumbai and Ors.