Bombay High Court
Sangita W/O. Arun Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2020
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
938 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 720 OF 2020
1. Gitabai w/o Bhaskar Koli,
Age 70 years, Occupation Household,
2. Bhika s/o Bhaskar Koli,
Age 32 years, Occupation Labour,
App. No.1 and 2 R/o Vitva,
Tal. Raver Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Sangita w/o Arun Koli,
Age 39 years, Occupation Labour,
4. Shobhabai s/o Kailas Koli,
Age 35 years, Occupation Labour,
App. No.3 and 4 R/o Khirdi,
Tal. Raver Dist. Jalgaon. ...Applicants.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Nimbhora Police Station,
Tal. Raver Dist. Jalgaon. ...Respondent.
.....
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. A. J. Patil.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya.
.....
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 06-03-2020.
ORAL ORDER :
1. Present application has been filed for suspension of sentence awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal in Sessions ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 ::: 2 CriApln 720-2020 Case No.12 of 2016 dated 04-02-2020.
2. The applicants have been sentenced thus ;
"1) .....
2) Accused No.1 Gitabai Bhaskar Koli is convicted for the offences
punishable u/sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3) Accused No.2 Bhika Bhaskar Koli, No.3 Sangita Arun Koli and No.4 shobhabai Kailas Koli are convicted for the offences punishable u/ sec.498-A r/w.Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
4) Accused No.1 Gitabai Bhaskar Koli is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 (five) years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the offence u/sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code.
5) Accused No.2 Bhika Bhaskar Koli, No.3 Sangita Arun Koli and No.4 Shobhabai Kailas Koli are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thosuand Only) each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month each for the offence u/sec.498A r/w.Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code......"
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. J. Patil for applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya for respondent-State. Perused the evidence on record made available.
4. At the outset it can be seen that, the applicant No.1 only has ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 ::: 3 CriApln 720-2020 been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for five months. Other accused have been convicted only under 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years, both the sentences can be termed as small sentences. The applicants have submitted that, they were on bail throughout the trial. There is nothing in the impugned Judgment to suggest that they have misused their liberty.
5. The learned advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The alleged incident had taken place on 26-05- 2014 at about 7.00 a.m. and in fact after the informant was admitted to hospital, after she had received the burn injuries, her statement was recorded in which she had stated that, the burn injuries were the result of accident. She was igniting the fire in the hearth. She had specifically stated that, she has no complaint to make against anybody, however the First Information Report is lodged on 01-08-2014 after considerable delay. It was also the case of the prosecution that, the accused persons were demanding ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 ::: 4 CriApln 720-2020 amount of Rs.30,000/- for mutating plot in the name of husband i.e. accused No.2, and on that count she was harassed. However, the evidence shows that, the said amount was demanded for purchasing plot. Purchasing of plot is different than mutating the name. The very purpose has not been considered by the learned Trial Judge. Applicants No.3 and 4 are the married sister-in-laws of the informant. They were admittedly not present on the day of incident. Only omnibus statements have been made involving them. With such kind of evidence in fact learned Judge ought to have acquitted all the accused persons from all the charges.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the reasons given by the learned Judge and submitted that, specific reason has been given by the informant as to why she had given such statement on 26-05-2014 stating that, she has no grievance to make against anybody as the fire was accidental. The evidence on record shows that, all the accused subjected her to cruelty by demanding amount of Rs.30,000/- and on the day of incident, the husband had assaulted the informant and went away but, thereafter, the applicant No.1 mother-in-law had poured kerosene on the person of the informant, and since she was near ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 ::: 5 CriApln 720-2020 fire, her nylon saree caught fire. Pouring of kerosene, on a person who was sitting near fire, was definitely with an intention to commit murder of that person and, therefore, the applicant No.1 has been rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. No leniency deserves to be shown on the applicants.
7. As aforesaid, the points which are in favour of the applicants have been stated, first is small sentence, and second is that they were on bail throughout the trial. Perusal of the evidence would show that, definitely the evidence is required to be revisited especially in respect of acts done by applicants No.3 and 4 who are the married sister-in-laws, admittedly residing at their respective matrimonial homes, and whether the alleged act by them would fall within the four corners of the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. Further no specific act is attributed to them in the First Information Report also. Position of husband is also same, however the evidence, which is additional, states that at about 7.00 a.m. on 26-05-2014 he had assaulted the victim by demanding Rs.30,000/-, and by assaulting him he left the house. The second point regarding the delay in lodging the report is ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 ::: 6 CriApln 720-2020 also required to be considered. Further point that has been raised and which requires consideration is, as to whether the informant could have received burn injuries on the front side of body when it is stated that the kerosene was poured on her back. Further point that is required to be considered is, as to whether the evidence of the informant, her father and other relative would be sufficient to hold that the informant was subjected to cruelty. Taking into consideration all these aspects and since appeal is admitted, and also the fact that the applicant No.1 is aged about 70 years at this stage, discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of applicants in view of Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211. Therefore, in view of above, the substantive sentence deserves to be suspended till the final hearing and disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2020. Hence, following order.
ORDER
1) The application is hereby allowed.
2) The substantive sentence awarded to the
applicants No.1 Gitabai w/o Bhaskar Koli, No.2 Bhika s/o Bhaskar Koli, No.3 Sangita w/o Arun Koli and No.4 Shobhabai s/o Kailas Koli, in Sessions Case No.12 of 2016, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal on ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 ::: 7 CriApln 720-2020 04-02-2020 for the offence punishable under Section 307, 498A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby suspended till the hearing and conclusion of Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2020.
3) In the meantime, the applicants be released on P.R. of Rs.30,000/- each (Thirty thousand) with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each (Fifteen thousand).
4) The applicants shall not commit any offence especially as against the prosecution witnesses during the pendency of the appeal.
5) Bail before Trial Court.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
vjg/-
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 00:26:17 :::