Aggrieved by the judgment, this appeal has been filed.
In the first dying declaration, she did number implicate her husband but in second and third dying declaration, which were also recorded on the same day she clearly stated that accused poured kerosene on her and sat her on fire.
Baby had also put her thumb impression on the dying declaration.
The prosecution case in nutshell is, Baby a girl of 18 years was residing at Mehkar with her parents, sister and brother.
Magar recorded the dying declaration of the Baby.
The Executive Magistrate sealed the dying declaration and sent it to the police.
There being numberdoctor available, waterman Narayan Mahure and maid servant Smt.
The statement of Baby recorded by the Police Sub Inspector was treated as dying declaration.
Magar took the Baby in the hospital and cleaned her wounds and administered I. V. saline.
On 04.03.1989 in late evening, she was alone at house.
Prosecution produced seven witnesses and certain documentary evidences.
Police Sub Inspector Meghrajani immediately came to the hospital and met the Baby.
After elaborately companysidering the submission and the grounds raised in appeal, the High Court maintained the companyviction.
On the same day one doctor, Ashok Surushe, Medical Officer companyducted autopsy on the dead body.
The case put up by the defence that death took place on account of chimney kerosene lamp falling on the Baby while she was sleeping and death was by accident, was number accepted.
At 9.00 pm she saw Raju in the bye lane by side of her house.
Dilawarsha used a quilt to put off the fire and thereafter on a push cart took Baby to Rural Hospital, Mehkar.
The theory of burn being caused by chimney burning lamp has rightly been rejected by companyrts below by giving companyent reasons.
The criminal case was companyverted under Section 302 IPC.
On 05.03.1989 one another Executive Magistrate, namely, Narayan Tandale came to hospital and recorded a dying declaration in his own words.
Raju poured kerosene on her person and then set her on fire with a burning match stick.
An appeal was filed by the accused before the High Court.
At about 9.30 pm when her brother Dilawarsha returned to the house from movie, he saw Baby in flames in bushes near the house.
On behalf of the defence only one witness, Shri Narayan Tandale Naib Tehsildar Executive Magistrate was produced.
Police Sub Inspector recorded the oral statement on which left thumb impression of Baby was also put.
Sessions Judge rejected the dying declaration recorded on 05.03.1989 by Shri Narayan Tandale.
Accused was put on trial before the Sessions Judge.
Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and companysidering the entire evidence on record found that it was accused who had put the deceased on fire.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
On 9.03.1989 Baby died in the hospital.
On seeing him she again asked him to marry her.
She asked Raju to marry her.
In the statement it was numbered that due to burns thumb impression companyld number be put by Baby.
The Naib Tehsildar DW 1 recorded the first dying declaration at 04.35 pm on same day.
On a requisition sent by Police Sub Inspector one Ramesh Giri the Executive Magistrate, Mehkar came to the Rural Hospital and in the presence of two employees of the Rural Hospital Narayan Mahure and Smt.
After recording the dying declaration Baby was shifted to the District Hospital, Buldhana.
Her parents had gone out and her brother and sister had gone to watch an evening movie.
In the above case the accused was married to deceased Ratanmala.
People living nearby came to the house, seeing the smoke and finding Ratanmala in burning companydition took her to the hospital.
Prosecution case was that on 25.7.1995 there was heated arguments between husband and wife and the accused poured kerosene on her and put her ablaze by lighting match stick.
Baby gave a statement before the police Sub Inspector that she was having a love affair with one Raju who was residing nearby.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 13.04.2007, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge.
She was pregnant, she had pregnancy of two months but the same was aborted.
