Partly allowed

Rani@Anjali Vaijinath Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Feb 2017APEAL/229/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court set aside the lower court's conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder. Finding the act was committed in heat of anger during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, the Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 304 part II IPC, sentencing her to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; conviction under Section 304 part II IPC imposed with sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine.

Rani@Anjali Vaijinath Shinde Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

cria229.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.229 OF 2013

¶6

Rani alias Anjali w/o Vaijinath Shinde,
Age-30 years, Occu:Household,
R/o-Munsi Plot Omerga,
Tq-Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad

¶7

...APPELLANT
 VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

...RESPONDENT
 ...
 Mrs.Vinaya C. Dharurkar Advocate for Appellant.
 Mr. P.G. Borade, A.P.P. for Respondent.

¶10

...

¶11

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶12

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 11TH JANUARY, 2017
 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 17TH FEBRUARY, 2017

¶13

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶14

1. By way of present Appeal, the Appellant

¶15

cria229.13

¶16

¶17

has challenged the Judgment and order dated 3rd
April 2013 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No.16 of
2012 thereby convicting the Appellant - accused
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer
life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-,
in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month.

¶18

2.The case of prosecution, in brief, is as

¶19

follows:

¶20

(A).The accused Rani was married to deceased
Vaijinath s/o Subhash Shinde, R/o Munshi Plot,
Omerga, Tq-Omerga, Dist-Osmanabad. Out of the
said wedlock, couple was blessed with a son namely
Sumit and a daughter namely Sayali. It is the
prosecution case that Vaijinath used to drive auto
rickshaw, but unfortunately in the accident his
right leg was fractured, and therefore he was not

¶21

cria229.13

¶22

¶23

able to do any work. Sachin is one of the brothers
of deceased Vaijinath. Earlier Subhash along with
his wife Laxmibai, deceased Vaijinath, Sachin and
his wife, and Amol were residing together in the
same house. But as the accused Rani had made
complaint against them with Mahila Takrar Nivaran
Kendra, Omerga, the accused along with her husband
was residing in two rooms separately in the same
house. It is further case of the prosecution that,

¶24

the accused used to pick up quarrel with her
husband as well as in-laws despite she was
residing separately with her husband. She
continued to pick up the quarrels with her
husband, therefore, her in-laws were not giving
much attention towards their quarrel.

¶25

(B).It is the case of prosecution that, on
31st March 2011, there was quarrel between the
accused Rani and deceased Vaijinath on account of

¶26

the accused going to Latur without informing
Vaijinath. In the night of 31st March 2011, the

¶27

cria229.13

¶28

¶29

accused and her husband Vaijinath after dinner
slept in their room. Sachin and his wife were
sleeping on the terrace of their house. Subhash,
his wife Laxmibai, Amol, another brother of
Vaijinath, and both children of Vaijinath were

¶30

sleeping in the house. It is the case of the
prosecution that in the night at about 3.00 to
3.30 a.m., the accused Rani poured kerosene on
the person of Vaijinath and set him ablaze.
Vaijinath sustained burn injuries and therefore he
raised shouts. On hearing his shouts, his father
Subhash got up and came out of the house and he

¶31

saw that the smoke was coming out from the window
of the room of Vaijinath. On hearing call of
Vaijinath, his brother Sachin also came down from
terrace. Then Subhash and Sachin went to the room
of Vaijinath. They opened the door and saw that
Vaijinath was burning. Therefore, Sachin put towel
on the person of Vaijinath. By that time Amol also

¶32

came there, who brought quilt and put the same on
the person of Vaijinath to extinguish the fire. At

¶33

cria229.13

¶34

¶35

that time Vaijinath was saying that Rani has set
him on fire by pouring kerosene on his person.
Thereafter Subhash came at the gate of their house
to see where is the accused. At that time, Subhash
saw that accused was standing outside the gate
and she ran away from the spot. Thereafter they
immediately shifted Vaijinath by auto rickshaw to
the hospital of Diggikar. But as the doctor was
not available in the said hospital, they
immediately took Vaijinath to Civil Hospital,
Omerga. Doctor on duty in Civil Hospital, Omerga
had made Medico Legal Case (M.L.C.) report to
police station, Omerga. Police Head Constable
Mahabole of Omerga Police Station immediately
rushed to the Civil Hospital, Omerga and recorded
statement of injured Vaijinath Subhash Shinde.
After giving preliminary treatment to Vaijinath at
Civil Hospital, Omerga, he was immediately shifted
to Civil Hospital, Solapur. As soon as injured
Vaijinath was taken to Civil Hospital, Solapur,
Medical Officer on duty informed to P.S.O. in

¶36

cria229.13

¶37

¶38

Civil Hospital Police Chowki, Solapur. On
receiving such information, Police Head Constable
Ghadge from the Police Chowki, immediately went to
the patient Vaijinath Shinde, and recorded
statement of Vaijinath Shinde in presence of
doctor. Thereafter Police Head Constable Ghadge
gave requisition letter to Executive Magistrate
for recording dying declaration of Vaijinath.
Accordingly Executive Magistrate Sow. Vijaya
Solapurkar came to the hospital and recorded dying
declaration of Vaijinath Shinde, in presence of
doctor.

¶39

(C).On the basis of statement of Vaijinath
Shinde recorded by Police Head Constable Mahabole
in Civl Hospital, Omerga, an offence punishable
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to

¶40

be registered against the accused Rani and A.P.I.
Udate then attached to Police Station, Omerga had

¶41

conductedfurtherinvestigation.During
investigation he visited the spot of incident

¶42

¶43

cria229.13

¶44

along with Panchas. At that time one quilt and
pillow, T.V. and inverter in half burnt condition,
one blue colour under-wear in burnt condition, one
piece of white colour shirt which was smelling of
kerosene and ash of burnt clothes were seen on the
spot of incident. All said articles were smelling
of kerosene. One five liter empty Can smelling of
kerosene was also found on the spot. A.P.I. Udate
has seized all said articles in presence of
Panchas, under Panchanama Exhibit 31. Then he
recorded statements of the witnesses, arrested the
accused with the help of Lady Police Constable
Adatrao. Saree on the person of the accused was
smelling of kerosene and therefore he got changed
the said saree with the help of Lady Police
Constable Adatrao and seized the said Saree, under
Panchanama Exhibit 32.

¶45

(D)On 3rd April 2011, A.P.I. Udate received

¶46

statement of injured referred by Police Head
Constable of Civil Hospital Police Chowki, Solapur

¶47

cria229.13

¶48

¶49

and another statement recorded by Executive
Magistrate, Inquest Panchnama and provisional
certificate of cause of death and then he added
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He again
recorded statements of some witnesses, sent the
seized articles to Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad
vide requisition letter Exhibit 38. Viscera was
also sent to Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad and
after completion of due investigation, A.P.I.
Udate has filed charge-sheet against the accused
Rani for the offence punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code.

¶50

3. The learned Sessions Court framed the
charge against the accused under Section 302 of
the I.P. Code below Exhibit 5. The contents of
charge were read over and explained to the accused
in vernacular, to which she pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is
that of total denial.

¶51

cria229.13

¶52

¶53

4.The Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga

¶54

recorded statement of the accused under Section

¶55

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has
denied entire evidence of prosecution witnesses
and stated that the deceased Vaijinath might have
committed suicide out of frustration or his family
members might have committed his murder and she
has been falsely implicated in the case. The
prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses.
The accused has neither examined herself on oath
nor examined any witness in her defence.

¶56

5.The trial Court considered the oral and
documentary evidence and discarded the defence of
the accused and holding the accused guilty,
convicted the Appellant - accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced her to suffer life imprisonment
and to pay fine as afore stated.

¶57

6.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶58

cria229.13

¶59

¶60

Appellant submitted that, there is delay of five
hours in lodging the F.I.R. The prosecution has
not explained the delay caused in filing the
F.I.R. Sachin, brother of deceased Vaijinath was

¶61

all along with the deceased and therefore
possibility of tutoring Vaijinath cannot be ruled
out. Since Vaijinath sustained 95% burn injuries,
he was not physically fit to make any statement.
The Dying declarations are not proved as per law.

¶62

Sachin and Amol, brother of Vaijinath are not
examined by the prosecution. The lady constable

¶63

who seized the clothes from the person of the
accused, is also not examined. C.A. reports of the
hair and skin of Vaijinath and C.A. report of the
articles seized from the spot, are not filed on
record. It appears from the deposition of Panch
witness and PW-10 Subhash Shinde that there is
difference between the actual spot of incident and
the panchnama drawn by the police. Postmortem

¶64

report is not reliable as the fracture in the leg
of Vaijinath is not reflected. No Cement water

¶65

cria229.13

¶66

¶67

tank appears in the photographs. Plastic Can

¶68

appears to be planted on spot. Map drawn by the
Circle Inspector is not matching with the
description of actual spot. Vaijinath was
unemployed and was under frustration. He was
demanding share in the landed property of his
father. In such situation the possibility of
suicide cannot be ruled out. It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant

¶69

that if the entire evidence of the prosecution is
considered, it is not sufficient so as to convict
the Appellant, and therefore, the Appellant is

¶70

entitled for benefit of doubt. The learned counsel
submits that the Appeal deserves to be be allowed.

¶71

7.Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State,

¶72

relying upon three dying declarations and also

¶73

oral dying declaration given by the Appellant to
PW-10 Subhash Shinde, father of the deceased, and

¶74

other evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, submits that the Judgment and order

¶75

cria229.13

¶76

¶77

passed by the trial Court is in consonance with
the evidence brought on record and therefore the
Appeal may be dismissed.

¶78

8.We have heard learned counsel appearing

¶79

for the Appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State at length, with their able assistance
perused the entire evidence brought on record by
the prosecution and also the defence taken by the
Appellant - accused.

¶80

9.Dr. Shailesh Shamling Patane was examined

¶81

as PW-7. In his evidence before the Court, he

¶82

deposed that dead body of Vaijinath was brought to
the hospital along with panchnama for autopsy and
accordingly he carried out autopsy. He found that
Vaijinath sustained 95% burn injuries. The doctor
deposed that area of burn in percentage was as
follows:

¶83

1] Head, neck, face : 9%
2] Right Upper Limb : 9%
3] Left Upper Limb : 9%

¶84

cria229.13

¶85

¶86

4] Chest abdomen : 17%
5] Right leg : 17%
6] Left leg : 17%
Total : 95%

¶87

.According to this witness PW-7 Dr.
Shailesh Patane, cause of death was "due to
multiple burn injuries". PW-7 has proved the
Postmortem Report Exhibit 28.

¶88

10.It appears that three dying declarations

¶89

of Vaijinath are recorded, which are at Exhibit
15, Exhibit 18 and Exhibit 26. The gist of the
dying declaration at Exhibit 15 is that, in the
night of 1st April 2011 at about 3.00 to 3.30
a.m., due to earlier quarrel, the accused poured
kerosene on the person of Vaijinath and ignited
the match stick. The said dying declaration at
Exhibit 15 is recorded by Haridas Sadashiv
Mahabole, Police Head Constable (PW-1). After
going through his evidence before the Court, it

¶90

cria229.13

¶91

¶92

inspires confidence. The manner in which dying
declaration was recorded, has been categorically
stated by him.

¶93

.PW-2 Dr. Nanasaheb Bajrang Gosawi deposed

¶94

before the Court that, on 1st April 2011 he was
attached to Sub District Hospital, Omerga as

¶95

medical officer. On that day at about 4.15 a.m.
patient namely, Vaijinath Shinde was brought in
the hospital as a case of burn. This witness PW-2

¶96

along with police constable, went to the patient

¶97

and examined the patient. The patient was

¶98

conscious. Then police recorded statement of said
patient in the presence of medical officer Gosawi,
PW-2. After recording statement of patient, this

¶99

witness PW-2 again examined the patient on the say
of police and gave endorsement on the statement

¶100

that, patient was conscious and oriented. After
carefully going through the entire evidence of

¶101

PW-2 Dr. Gosawi, it appears that after satisfying

¶102

himself that patient was conscious and oriented,

¶103

cria229.13

¶104

¶105

he made the endorsement to that effect before and
after recording the statement. Therefore, there is

¶106

no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and
PW-2.

¶107

11.In dying declaration Exhibit 18 Vaijinath
stated that due to quarrel took place during the
night, on 1st April 2011 at about 3.00 to 3.30
a.m., his wife Rani (accused) poured kerosene on
his person and set him ablaze in heat of anger, as
a result he sustained burn injuries. The dying
declaration Exhibit 18 is recorded by PW-3
Appasaheb Gopinath Ghadge, Police Head Constable.
After going through his evidence before the Court,
it also inspires confidence. He has deposed that
on 1st April 2011 he was on duty at civil
hospital, Solapur as P.S.O. in police chowki. On
that day at about 7.20 a.m. Dr. Patil (PW-4) came
to police chowki and told him that one patient
Vaijinath Shide has been admitted in the hospital.
Thereafter PW-3 himself with Dr. Patil (PW-4) went

¶108

cria229.13

¶109

¶110

near the patient and asked the relatives of the
patient to go away and after PW-3 asked PW-4 to
examine the patient. Doctor told this witness that
patient can speak. Then PW-3 Ghadge recorded

¶111

statement of the patient as per his say.
Thereafter doctor made endorsement that during
course of recording statement patient was
conscious. After recording statement, PW-3
obtained thumb impression of the patient on the
statement and also read over the same to the
patient. Thus this witness PW-3 Ghadge deposed in
detail how he has recorded statement of Vaijinath.

¶112

.PW-4 Dr. Padmakar Madhavrao Patil deposed

¶113

before the Court that on 1st April 2011 he was

¶114

working as medical officer in civil hospital,
Solapur in casualty department. On that day,

¶115

patient Vaijinath Shinde was referred to the
hospital. The history of the patient was that on

¶116

1st April 2011 in the morning at about 3.30 a.m.

¶117

he was set on fire by his wife. He further deposed

¶118

cria229.13

¶119

¶120

that as per the say of police, he examined the
patient. Condition of the patient was good and he
was able to speak. Thereafter police recorded
statement of the patient, when this medical
officer was also present. After recording
statement PW-4 Dr. Padmakar Patil again examined
the patient. The patient was able to speak
properly. Accordingly PW-4 made endorsement on the
statement Exhibit 18 recorded by police. After
carefully going through the entire evidence of
PW-4 Dr. Padmakar Patil, it appears that after
satisfying himself that patient was conscious and

¶121

able to speak, he made the endorsement to that
effect before and after recording the statement.
Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the
evidence of PW-3 and PW-4.

¶122

12.Third dying declaration at Exhibit 26 is
recorded by Executive Magistrate, which is in
question-answer form. In this dying declaration,
Vaijinath stated that his wife Sou Rani Vaijinath

¶123

cria229.13

¶124

¶125

Shinde (accused), in a heat of anger, poured
kerosene on his person and set him on fire. This
dying declaration Exhibit 26 is recorded by PW-6
Vijaya Surkayakant Solapurkar. PW-6 Vijaya
Solapurkar deposed that she was working as
election Naib Tahsildar, North Solapur since 2010.
She has got powers of Executive Magistrate. On 1st
April 2011 police head constable Ghadge came to
her and he gave requisition letter to her for
recording statement of Vaijinath Shinde in civil
hospital, Solapur. After receipt of requisition
letter Exhibit 19, she went to civil hospital,

¶126

Solapur. As per the say of this witness PW-6, the
doctor examined the said patient and gave opinion
that patient was able to speak and she can record
the statement. Thereafter PW-6 Vijaya recorded the
statement of Vaijinath. After recording statement
Exhibit 26, she read over the same to the patient.
Patient accepted it to be correct. Then PW-6
obtained thumb impression of left hand of the
patient. Doctor again examined the patient and

¶127

cria229.13

¶128

¶129

made endorsement that patient is conscious.

¶130

.PW-5 Raghav Pramod Pargaonkar, medical

¶131

officer deposed that, on 1st April 2011 he was

¶132

working as an Assistant Surgery Resident Doctor in

¶133

burn ward. Special Executive Magistrate came to
him and requested him that, she wanted to record
dying declaration of patient Vaijinath Shinde who
was admitted in burn ward. Then PW-5 himself and

¶134

Special Executive Magistrate went to the patient.

¶135

PW-5 examined the patient after asking the

¶136

relatives to leave the room. PW-5 found that the

¶137

patient was conscious and oriented. Then PW-5
asked the Special Executive Magistrate that she

¶138

could conduct the dying declaration. After

¶139

completion of recording of dying declaration PW-5
again examined the patient and found him conscious

¶140

and oriented. Then PW-5 entered his remarks on the

¶141

statement. We have also carefully perused the

¶142

cross examination of the witness PW-5. Nothing
contrary has been brought on record by the

¶143

cria229.13

¶144

¶145

defence. After carefully going through the
evidence of PW-5 and PW-6, it appears that there
is no reason to discard their oral testimony.

¶146

13.There is also an oral dying declaration
which is given by Vaijinath to his father -
Subhash Vithoba Shinde, who is examined as PW-10.
He has deposed about his family members. About the
main incident, he deposed that on 31st March 2011
he himself, his wife, his son Amol and Sachin
after taking dinner, slept in their rooms. His son
Sachin and wife of Sachin went to sleep on terrace

¶147

of their house. Vaijinath (deceased) and his wife
were in their room. In the night at about 3.00 to
3.30 a.m. they heard the shouts of Vaijinath.
Therefore witness got up and came out of the house
and saw that smoke was coming out from the window

¶148

of the room of Vaijinath. On hearing shouts of
Vaijinath, Sachin, brother of Vaijinath, also came

¶149

down from terrace. Then witness PW-10 and Sachin
came to the room of Vaijinath, opened the door and

¶150

cria229.13

¶151

¶152

pulled out Vaijinath. Sachin put towel on the
person of Vaijinath. Then Amol, another brother of
Vaijinath, brought Chadar (quilt) and put on the
person of Vaijinath. PW-10 further deposed that
Vaijinath was saying that Rani (accused) has put
him on fire, by poring kerosene on his person.
PW-10 further deposed that he came at the gate of
their house to see where is Rani. At that time
PW-10 saw that Rani was standing outside the gate.
Then she ran away till PW-10 opens the gate. We
have also carefully perused the cross examination
of PW-10.

¶153

14.After carefully perusing the entire
evidence on record, it follows that the accused
Rani committed offence as alleged against her.
However, dying declaration Exhibit 26 recorded by

¶154

the Special Executive Magistrate if read
carefully, it appears that on the previous day of
incident and also in the said night, there was
quarrel between the accused Rani and her husband

¶155

cria229.13

¶156

¶157

Vaijinath on trifle ground. In view of the
exposition by the Supreme Court in the case of
Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay1, the dying
declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate in
the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of
questions and answers, and, as far as practicable,
in the words of the maker of the declaration,
stands on a much higher footing than a dying
declaration which depends upon the oral testimony
which may suffer from all the infirmities of human
memory and human character. The relevant portion
of the dying declaration Exhibit 26, recorded by
the Executive Magistrate, which stands on higher
footing vis-a-vis the earlier two dying
declarations recorded by the police officers, is
as under:-

¶158

" 10- rqeP;k vaxkojhy t[kek ;k d'kkeqGs >kY;k vkgsr ?

¶159

mRrj & IkRuh lkS- jk.kh oStwukFk f'kans fgus jkxkP;k

¶160

1A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 22 (V 45 C 4)

¶161

cria229.13

¶162

¶163

Hkjkr jkWdsy vksrwu isVowu fnys ¼HkkaM.ks½( [Wife Sou. Rani Vaijunath Shinde, in a heat of anger, poured kerosene and set on fire (quarrel)].

¶164

15.Therefore if all the dying declarations

¶165

are considered and in particular dying declaration
at Exhibit 26 referred herein above, it appears
that in a heat of anger, the accused Rani poured
kerosene on the person of her husband Vaijinath
and set him ablaze.

¶166

.The accused Rani during the trial, while
recording her statement under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, in reply to Question
No.60, has stated thus:

¶167

" iz-dz- 60- rqyk dsl cnny vk.k[kh dkgh lkaxko;kps vkgs dk; ?

¶168

mRrj & eh vkf.k ekÖ;k irhe/;s dkgh HkkaM.k UkOgrslkljk vkf.k ekÖ;k irhe/;s HkkaM.k pkyw gksrs-

¶169

cria229.13

¶170

¶171

lfpuus ekÖ;k irhyk ekjys gksrs o <dywu fnys gksrs- R;kpk lokZapk jkx ekÖ;koj dk<yk o eyk ?kjkckgsj dk<ys gksrs- eh ?kjkckgsj >ksiys gksrs- irhus vkrwu dMh ykowu ?ksryh gksrh- dkgh osGkus xksa/kGkpk vkokt ,sdw vkyk rsOgk eh xsVtoG vkyhlkljk lfpuyk Eg.kkyk fgyk lksMw udks- Eg.kwu eh rdzkj ns.;klkBh iks- LVs- yk xsyh- iks- LVs- e/;s dks.khgh UkOgrs Eg.kwu eh dVV;koj clwu jkfgyhuarj ldkGh dGkys dh ?kjke/;s v'kh ?kVuk ?kMyhek>k uojk dkgh dke /kank djhr uOgrk Eg.kwu fujk'ksiksVh [kwi nk: fir gksrk- R;kP;k ik;kpk vi ?kkr >kY;keqGs dkgh dke /kank gksr uOgrk?kjps yksd i.k R;kyk ekufld =kl nsr gksrs- R;kus fujk'ksiksVh vkRegR;k dsyh vlkoh vxj ?kjP;kauh rjh R;kPkk vi?kkr dsyk vlkok vlk ek>k la'k; vkgs ekÖ;k ojps vkjksi [kksVs vkgsr- "

¶172

16.It is also the case of the Appellant that
there was delay of five hours in recording the
F.I.R. and also the father and brothers of

¶173

Vaijinath were accompanying him in the hospital
all the time and therefore all the dying
declarations are result of tutoring. While
addressing on the sentence, the learned defence

¶174

cria229.13

¶175

¶176

counsel submitted before the trial Court that the
Appellant has two children and the probable
defence taken by the Appellant may be accepted.

¶177

17.We have also carefully gone through the

¶178

expositions in the reported Judgments of the
Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, relied on

¶179

by the learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant, in support of her submissions. The
learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the
Judgments in the case of Chinnathaman vs. State

¶180

rep. by Inspector of Police2, Mohan Sadhu Kawale

¶181

vs. State of Maharashtra3, Shivaji vs. The State of
Maharashtra4, Dada vs. The State of Maharashtra5,
Kakasaheb vs. The State of Maharashtra6, Hasan
Geblya Padvi vs. The State of Maharashtra7,

¶182

Komalsing vs. The State of Maharashtra8.

¶183

2 A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 784

¶184

3 2004 Cri.L.J. 4167

¶185

4 2015 All M.R.(Cri) 4680

¶186

5 2014 All M.R.(Cri) 3496

¶187

6 2016 All M.R.(Cri) 849

¶188

7 2010(110)BOM.L.R. 3395

¶189

8 2014 All M.R.(Cri) 3265

¶190

cria229.13

¶191

¶192

18.Asalreadyobserved,dying

¶193

declarations at Exhibit 15, Exhibit 18 and

¶194

Exhibit 26 have been proved by prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt and same get complete
corroboration from the evidence of PW-10 Subhash

¶195

Shinde, to whom Vaijinath made oral dying
declaration. In that view of the matter,
inevitable conclusion is that, the Appellant did
commit the offence, as alleged by the prosecution.
However, upon careful perusal of the contents of

¶196

the dying declaration at Exhibit 26, which is
recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate, it
appears that Appellant Rani, in a heat of anger,
due to quarrel took place in the night, poured
kerosene on the person of Vaijinath and set him on
fire. On plain reading of this version from the
said dying declaration, it is abundantly clear

¶197

that, there was neither premeditation on the part
of the accused, nor there was preparation for such

¶198

commission of offence. It appears that, the
incident had taken place in a heat of anger due to

¶199

¶200

cria229.13

¶201

quarrel on trifle issue. Therefore, the accused
committed offence in a heat of anger upon a sudden
quarrel and the act was committed by the accused
without premeditation. In that view of the matter,
takingintoconsiderationaforementioned
mitigating circumstances, we are of the view that,
exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code applies to the facts of the present case and
appropriate conviction would be under Section 304
Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

¶202

19.Hence, the conviction of the Appellant

¶203

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set
aside and instead, the Appellant is convicted
under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal
Code. For the said offence, the Appellant is
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of Seven Years

¶204

and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to suffer further simple
imprisonment for one month. Set off be given as
per rules.

¶205

cria229.13

¶206

¶207

20.Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly

¶208

allowed.

¶209

[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶210

asb/FEB17

Rani@Anjali Vaijinath Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani@Anjali Vaijinath Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Sohail Ahmed S/O Shaikh Rasheed Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mrs Shaukuntalabai W/O Kishan Waghmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra S/O Bhaskarao Awsarmol Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The State of Mah. Vs Prakash Motiram Patil and Ors.

Motiram S/O Aglya Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pankaj Shamkant Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.