Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Raosaheb @ Dabya Raja Kale and his wife Tolabai, were convicted by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, for the murder of Manisha Popat Kale, an 18-year-old girl, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 11 November 2002, between 6-7 PM, the appellants entered the victim's house, quarreled with her, and then appellant No.1 poured kerosene on her from a plastic can found in the house, while appellant No.2 ignited a matchstick and set her on fire. The victim's sister, Surekha (PW-1), witnessed the incident and tried to intervene but was manhandled. The victim sustained 100% burns and died the next day. The motive for the crime was that a day earlier, on 10 November 2002, the appellants had quarreled with Banya Kale (brother of appellant No.1) over his marriage, and the victim had intervened to help Banya Kale escape, which angered the appellants. The trial court convicted both appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000 each. The appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court, challenging their conviction. The High Court, after hearing arguments, examined the evidence including the testimony of PW-1 Surekha, the medical evidence, and the motive. The court found the eyewitness account credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The court also noted that the appellants had a motive due to the prior incident. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - Appellants, husband and wife, poured kerosene on the victim and set her on fire, resulting in death - Eyewitness (sister of victim) testified to the incident - Medical evidence corroborated burns as cause of death - Motive established by prior quarrel where victim intervened to protect Banya Kale from appellants' assault - Held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was upheld (Paras 1-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Manisha by setting her on fire is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Common Intention
- Dying Declaration
- Eyewitness Testimony
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Motive
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (12) 45
Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2005
Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, A. R. Joshi
Mrs. Latika Ashok Misal for Appellant No.1, Mr. D. G. Khamkar for Appellant No.2, Mr. S. A. Shaikh, APP for Respondent State
Raosaheb @ Dabya Raja Kale and Sou. Tolabai Raosaheb @ Dabya Kale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; they appealed challenging the conviction.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (V Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur) convicted both appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000 each, with default sentence of three months SI. They were acquitted under Section 504 IPC.
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence of eyewitness PW-1 Surekha and medical evidence.
Whether the motive attributed to the appellants is sufficient to establish guilt.
Whether the dying declaration (if any) was properly considered.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence of PW-1 Surekha is unreliable and that there are contradictions in the prosecution case.
Prosecution argued that the eyewitness account is credible, corroborated by medical evidence, and the motive is established.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable when the eyewitness testimony is credible, corroborated by medical evidence, and motive is established. The common intention of the appellants to kill the victim by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire is proved.
Judgment Excerpts
Both the AppellantsAccused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ each and in default to suffer S.I. for three months each.
The victim is a young girl of 18 years by name Manisha Popat Kale...
AppellantAccused No.2 set on fire the said Manisha by igniting match stick and thrown it on the person of the victim.
Procedural History
The appellants were tried in Sessions Case No.105 of 2003 before the V Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, who convicted them on 13th November 2005. They appealed to the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.546 of 2005, which was dismissed on 19th December 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34, 504
