Tarachand Damu Sutar v. the State of Maharashtra

Judgment

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 20, 1900, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 488, 420 of 1960 with Review Application Nos. 555 and 641 of 1960. G. C. Mathur, for the appellant. B.R.L. Iyengar and D. Gupta, for the respondent. HJ61. May 4. The Judgment of Kapur, Subba Rao and Shah, JJ , was delivered by Kapur, J., and the judgment of Hidayatullah and Dayal, JJ., was delivered by Dayal, J. KAPUR, J. This is an n.ppeal against the judgment ~nd order of the High Court of Bombay imposing the sentence of death in appeal by the State against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhulia. The facts of the appeal are these: The appellant, in about 1950, married Sindhubai the daughter of Chandrabhagabai. Sindhubai who is the deceased had read up to the 7th. Standard.

The appellant and Sindhubai were residing in a one room tenement in a house belonging to one Tavar pleader in which there are in all 12 to 15 tenements. The tenement of the appellant was not very far from that of the appellant's cousin Shantabai who was residing with her husband Pandu Geuda and the house of Chandrabha<rabai was about a furlong away from that of the ;ppcllant. The relations between the appellant and the tfoccased were normal for some.- time but about two years before the occurrence differences had arisen and there were frequent quarrels between them. A ehild of the marriage was born about 1-1/2 years before the occurrence. The deceased was a frequent visitor to her mother's house to which the appellant took objection. The appellant had stopped giving her the necessities of life including foodgrains etc. About a week before Diwali the appellant gave her a beating.

The deceased used to have her meals with her mother and the appellant with his cousin Shantabai and the daughter of the marriage Urmila stayed with the mother of the deceased during the day time. The occurrence was on the Bhaubij day i. e. November 2, 1959 betwee.n 1.30 and 3.30 in the afternoon. After having her meals at her mother's house the deceased returned to her husband's house and went to sleep in the afternoon. It is stated that while she was sleeping the appellant gave her a beating and after sprinkling Kerosene oil on her clothes, set fire to them. The deceased with her clothes burning went in the direction of the house of Shantabai but fell down in front of it and was almost naked when some body covered her body with a dhoti. Chandrabhagabai received information, it is stated, from her neice Suman about this fact and Chandrabhagabai ran to the spot and found her body burnt.

The cousin, Shantabai and her husband Pandu Genda also arrived and on enquiry by Chandrabhagabai the deceased told her that her . husband had set fire to her clothes affor sprinkling kerosene oil on her. By this time a police constable informed the Police Station which was nearby and an ambulance car was sent and the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Dhulia at about 4-15 P.M. 8he wa8 examined by Dr. Javeri who Tarachanil Damu Sut~r 1'he State of lvfaharaskl.'a Kapur J. 19.01 TtJrachand Damu Sutar The Stale of Maharashtra KapurJ. [1962) treated her and on his enquiry the deceased told him that hPr lmshaud.hacl set fire to her clothes after sprinkling kerosene oil on her clothes. Dr. Jav!·ri then informed the police and advised that a dying declaration he recorded. At about 5-30 P.M. a Magistrate Mr. Mhatre recorded the statement of the deceased but she died at 8-15 P. M. on the same day in the hospital.

The defence of the appellant was that of alibi, in that he was at work on the house of Mulchand Rajmal at Nehru Nagar which :was being built and that he was entirely innocent of the offence. The trial court found that it was the appellant who had set fire to the clothes of the deceased after sprinkling kerosene oil; that the appellant had the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased as was likely to cause death and it therefore convicted the appellant of an offence under s. 304 Part I and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.JOO/-. The learned judge accept4ld the testimony of the mother Chandrabhagabai as to the dying declaration and. also that of Dr. Javeri and finally he accepted the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate which was in the form of questions and answers. In all her dying deelarations the deceased had accused the appellant of setting fire to her clothes and thus causing her severe burns.

The State took an appeal to the High Court which convicted the appellant of an offence under s. 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. Against that judgment and order the appellant applied for certificate to appeal to this Court under Art. 134 (I) (a) but the certificate was refused and this Court ga vc special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The first question for decision is whether the appellant had a right of appeal to this Court under Art. 134 (1) (a) and the decision of that must depend 2 s.c.R. upon the construction to be put on the language used in that Article the relevant portion of which is as follows: 134 (1) "An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court.- ( a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death."

If the High Court reverses an order of acquittal of an accused person and eentences him to death an appeal shall lie as of right to this Court under the Article. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant was that as the appellant was acquitted of the offence of s. 302 and was convicted under s. 304 Part I it W(lS a case of reversing an order of acquittal. The argument on behalf of the State was that the word acquittal meant complete acquittal. The decision of this must depend upon the construction of the word "acquittal". If a person is acquitted of the offence charged and is convicted of a lesser offence, as in the present case, can it be said that he was acquitted and the High Court had on appeal reversed the order of acquittal."

In our opinion the word "acquittal ? does not mean that the trial must have ended in a complete acquittal of the charge but acquittal of the offence charged and conviction for a minor offence (than that for which the accused was tried) is included in the word "acquittal". This view has the support of of a judgment of the judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Kishan Singh v. The King Emperor OJ. In that case an accused person wa,s tried by the Sessions Judge under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of murder but was convicted under s. 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Court having power to do that under s. 238 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was sentenced to (I) (1,28) L.R. 551.A, 390, Tarachand Darrvu8utar The State of Maharashtra Kapur J. [1962] five years' rigorous imprisonment. No acquittal of the charge under a. 302 was recorded.

There was no appeal to the High Court by the then local Tarnclmnd Government but it applied for rovision under s. 439 Da1nu l:;uta,:r on the grounds that the 1ippellant should have been The Sta.to of convict!'d of mnrclcr and tho sentence was inade- A!_aharasllfrq ·quat.:. The High Court com-iot.rd the a.ppellant of murder and scntencocl him to death. On appeal to Kapur J. =- the Privy Council it was lleld that the finding of - t.he trial court was to be regarded as an acquittal on the charge of nmrdor and that under s. 439 (4) Criminal Procedure Code the word "acquittal" did not mean complete acquittal. At page 397 Sir Lancelot. Sa11ders01i observed: "Their LOrdships, however, do think it necessary to say that if the learned Judges of the High Court o( Madras intended to hold that the prohibition in s. 430 sub-s.

4 refers only to a· ca:s(\ where the trial has ended in a compll·te: acquittal of the accused in respect of all charg<'R or· offences, and not to ease 'such as the present, "·here tho accused has hem1 acquittocl of the charge of murder, but convict<'<! of the minor offence of nulpable' homicide not amounting to murder, their Lordships a1·c nnabli; t.o agrre with thoi.t part nf t.heir deciAion. Tho words of t.hc AUh-sect ion arc clear anrl t.her(' can he no clou1it as'to t.Jwir mc-'aning.

There is 110 justification for the qualification which the learned Judges in the cited caAe" attaehed to the s1tb-section." \Ve are in respectful. agreement with the interpretation pnt on the '~ord "acquittal" by the Judicia.l Committee of the Privy Council and the word "acquittal" therefore docs not meitu that the trial must h:we ~ncled in a complcto acquittal !mt would aliso inclmln the ca.so whoro 1111 acCt!J'!Nl has been a.oqnitted of the charge nf mnrder ian'd has been convicted of a les:.er offence. In that "view .of the matter the appelhnt was entitled to a certificate 2 ';Sl under Art. 134 (1) (a) as a matter of right and this appeal must be treated as if it is under that provision of the Constitution. The facts of this <ipp<'al have boon set out nbovo. In suppoi't of the prosecution the evidcnc(l m:\inly, if not solely, consists of the dying declarations.

The first ,]ying deelarntion was made to the mother Chandrahhagabai as soon as she came to the place where tho deceased was lying and in answer to her question "tis to who had done it," the reply was that ";twas clone by her husband; also that the husband had set fire to her clothes." In crossexamination she stated that at the time when this statement was made by the deceBsed Shantabai and her lrnsband Pandu Genda were present. A suggestion W<tS made to her that the rlcccasecl implicated the appellant at the inRtancc of Chanclrablmgahai !mt she repudiated this suggestion and Loth tlw trial court and thi;i High Court have accept1>d thP eorrPctncss of this dying declaration and also that it wa~ not prompted by the mother Chandrabhagabai. Beyond a mere suggPstion in the' cross-examination there is no material to support the' rontrntion of prompting by the mother. A Rimiln,r Rtatmncnt Mensing t.hP appellant of setting fire to her was made by the deceased to the Doctor (Dr. Javeri) who 'lskcd the clccC'ascd as to how she got the burns and her reply was that lwr husband had sprinklecl kerosene oil on her and hacl applied a matehsbc·k to her C'lothes.

This statement was also accepted by the High Court and we find 110 reason to differ from that conclusion. The third dying declaratfon was made in the pn'sonce of and was recorded by Mr. Mhatrc, a Magistrate at about 5-30 P.M. in the presonrc of Dr. Javcri "·ho certified tlrnt the cfoceased was in a fit stato of mind to make the sfa'tcment. The Magistl'atu asked her certain qu()'l!tions which are set out in detail and lie took down the answers and his evidence is that the deceased understood the questions 11nd replied to them. He Tarachand Damu S11tar The State of Maharashtra KapurJ. Tarachand Damu Sutar The Statt of Maharashtra KapurJ. (1962] made a record of the questions and answers but that record was not signed by her nor her thumb impression taken on it because her hands were badly burnt. This examination took about an hour.

This dying declaration was held by the trial Court to have been made without the help or prompting of anybody and according to Chandrabhagabai she was not present a"t the time. The learned Trial Judge held that the dying declaration was "freely given without the influence of anybody. It was not made under influence of any personal feelings." The High Court also accepted the correctnesi; of this dying declaration and there is no evidence on the record which would in any way detr1t0t from the finding of the trial Court or of the High Court in regard to the correctness or tne propriety of this dying declara t.ion. The argument raised before us was two fold: (1) that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence at all and (2) that it W'<S a case of suicide. There are no cogent grounds which would lead to the conclusion that the deceased wanted to commit suicide nor have any circumstances been shown to us which would lead to any such conclusion.

Even though it may be true that the relations between the husband and the wife were strained so much so that the husband had almost refused to maintain the deceased and was not prepared to give her even food there is no indication that the deceased was so worked up as to have lost her self-control so as to commit suicide. Certain other circumstances as to the absence of any kerosene oil on the clothes of the appellant or the absence of kerosene oil on the bedding have been pointed out but in the circu1!1-st?'~ces of this case those circumstances are of no s1gmf10ance. Both the trial court and the High Court have found that the deceased had died as a result of burns caused by tre fire set to her clothes by t~e appellant who had sprinkled kerosene on her. This is supported by the dying declarations against the correctness of which no cogent reasons have been given or suggested and a conviction ba~ed on such evidence has been held to be sustainable by this Court in Khushal Rao v. The State of Bomhay<2l, The plea of alibi was sought to be supported by the evidence of Gangaram Sitaram a co-worker of the appellant but his testimony was rejected by both the trial Court and the High Court and having gone through it we find no reason to differ from that opinion.

In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. We agree that the appellant had a right of appeal under Art. 134 (1) (a) of the Constitution, but regret our inability to agree with the view that the conviction of the appellant under s.302, I. P. C., be maintained. In appeals preferred under Art. 134 (l l (a) of the Constitution, we are to assess afresh the value of the evidence of record, and do not follow the practice of this Court in appeals, by special leave, under Art. 136 of the Constitution, that the concurrent findings of the Courts below be not interfered with, ordinarily, but be interfered with only when special circumstances exist .. We are of opinion that it is not s~.fe in this case to bru;e the conviction of the appellant solely on the dying declarations made by the deceased, even though in law a conviction can lawfully be based on dying declaration alone if the Court feels fully satisfied about its giving a true version of the incident.

The first dying declaration was made to her mother, by the decef\sed. It was certainly natural for the mother to question her daughter as to how she got burnt. But that does not really mean that (2) ( 1958) S. C. R. 552. Tarachand Damu Sutar The State of Maharll8htra Kapur J. Raghubar Dayal Tarachand n,,mu Sittar The State of Mal!arashtra Raghubar Dayal SUPREME COUH.T BEPORTS (1962] the daughter did state all wlmt the mother deposes. Two points arise there, :md they are : (a) Did the mother speak th:e trnth ? aud (b} Did the cfaughter speak the trnth ? The• mother, P.W. J, admittedly, has not good relations 11·ith her son-in-law. She made discrepant statements. Tho Sessions Judge has remarked, in paragraph I:! of his judgment, that there were lot of discrepancies in the statemcents of this witness.

Reference ma,y be made to her stating at one plaeo that when she used to request the accused not to beat the tbughter, the result was adverse and denying tho correctness of this statement when questioned in cross-examination. According to her, only she was sen~ away from the room when the Magistrate recorded the dying declaration of the deceased in the hospital, indicating that the accused and some othel'S continued to remain in the room. This statement is not borne out by Dr. Javeri or by the Magistrate. She expressed ignorance about the deceased making a statement to the police. The Sub-Inspector and Dr. Javori deposed about her making such a st'.ttement. :)he could not have been ignorant about it. She deposes that the accused came to the spot where Sindhubai, the deceased, lay injured, about five minutes after. her arrival. She .knew that he had set fire to Sindhubai's clothes after pouring kerosene oil on her. She did not question him about it. She did not reprimand him.

She did not abuse him. She did nothing which could have been normally expected of a mother knowing that the accused had burnt her daughter. The explanation that she was sorrow-strikcn, lacks the· ring of truth. Grief striken she must be, but that would not have made her mute. According to her, Sindhubai made this dying declaration when Shantabai, cousin of the accused, and her husband Pandu Geuda were present. These witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate her statement. SUPREME COUHT ItEPORTS The other dying declaration relied on by the Courts below was made by the deceased to Dr. Javeri, on his c~sually questioning the deceased as to how she got injured. It may be natur d, but we have our doubts, for the Doctor to put such questions to the patient in agony, which had no re;il connection with his duties as a medical man, and such questioning cannot be said to have any com· forting effect on the patient.

Such questioning can be·nothing but idle curiosity which a Doctor in that position should not evince. Any way, it would not be a good precedent to rely on such a statement to the Doctor in such ciruumst:i,nccs, when the Doctor makes no record about it, even if it be not required to be noted in the medico-legal register. We would consider it safe not to rely upon such a statement made to a casual question by the Doctor, the details of which statement are not clear. The dying declaration made to the police has been ignored, the Sessions Judge considering that it was not made at all, or not made at the time the Sub-Inspector deposed to have got the dying declaration from the cteceased. No significance attaches to this dying declaration in any case when it was recorded after the deceased had made a formal dying declaration to the Magistrate.

The dying declaration to the MtLgistmte has certainly been recortled with care. 'l'he relevant statements made in this dying tleclaration are the following: "I am suffering injuries of burning. My husband is my enemy. My husband has burnt me. Kerosene was poured over my body and a match stick was lighted. I was sleeping in the house. He, i.e., my husband, beat me and then burnt me. I shouted, but nobody came. He was ill treating me. He was harasssing me and was cansing me starvation for Tarachand Dronu S,ufar 1he State of ~\faftara.shtra llaylrnbar Dayal Taraehand Damu Sutar Tht State of Maharashtra Raghvhar Dayal [1962] the last 8 days. I had complained about it to Pandu Genda and Shanta Pandu. I did not send any information to my parents about the starvation." The High Court has stated several times in its judgment that Sindhubai was sleeping when the accused set fire to her clothes. The panchnama- Exhibit No. 14. prepared about the room, does not show that the bedding had any oil sprinkled ovBr it or that it got burnt.

Quite a number of other clothes were burnt, which need not have caught fire. Absence of oil on the bedding is not consistent with her statement that she was sleeping in the house when the thing happened. Th.is statement is also not consistent with the next statement made by her that her husband beat her and then burnt her. Her statement that nobody came on her shouts because the door of the house was shut, does not fit in with her statement to the police in Exhibit 19 that the accused ran away on his work after he had set fire. The probability too is that. if the accused had set fire to her clothes he would run away just after setting fire as he could expect that the victim would shout and that her shouts would attract neighbours and persons passing by. Even if the door was latched for some time while the accused remained there because he did go subsequently, that does not explain the non-arrival of any person. The persons could have come and could have knocked at the door.

It is really remarkable that in this case not a single witness of the neighbourhood has come to depose anything in support of the prosecution case. There is no evidence at all from an outside source. The investigation seemed to have revealed nothing whal!ever. There is nothing in the case to lend assurance to any circumstance. Surely, this cannot be the result of the :<ccused's influence on the witnesses or the result of a general indination not to speak the truth in the interests of justice, even when the "SlJPREME COURT REPORTS {Lccused commited the dastardly act of setting fire to his own wife. Their absence from the witness box may be rlue to their not standing what they knew to he untrue or clid not consider to be true.

It is always a tliffioult gnestion to sp('culate why cfocoase.cl :wcuH<'<l a !'6l'(ain person of.committing the crime, or why a witnoRs c1eJJOHes against a: person with whom he ha8 no nstcnsih le eam:e of enmity or why tho p'o lire, in the <lii;chargc·of its public dnty should influonce persons to mako inaccurate stat.ements, when Courts come to tho conclusion that the accusation or the cvidt>nce docs not appear to· be true and t.11at there arc reasons ·1'0 suppose that the police liad influenced the ·testimmiy of witnesses. Anyway, the same· clifficu Hy <H?<•urn in the present c·ase. But. it is. dear tlmt. tlu' J't•lations between the wife and the husl!nnd were st.rained to such an exte1~t that, accmding to the prosecution, the accused not .only st.'trVl'<l her, but. also set fire to her clothes wit.h the intention to '<:ause her death.

Such a uL>nduc;i. of the husban1l cannot be on account of ordinary domestic: unpleasantner;ses, but must be the result of a vl:<ly i1cut.<l feeling of despar;1tion and n < \eHirn not to Jive >1ny more with his wife. If such· we>rc the re lat.ion8 which one is in·, dined to infor from what the prosechtiol! w;tnt~ the Court t.o believe, it shou lcl not be difficult to imagine that the wife's motives fo ehargi'ng the husband falsely may be equally strong. She too must have been fed up with the misery of her life and might have committed suicide and put an end to her life, but when, as often happens, she was questioned, she accused her husband of setting fire to her clothes, not with a view to save herself from a conviction for attempting to commit suicide, but either on account of her feeling that her husband was responsible for all her troubles and that -her desparatc action was also due to the same cause or out of malice.

Any wf1y, a dying declaration is not to be believed me'rely because no possible reason Tarashtind Dam,,; Butar The Bt,are of Maha.raahtrtt Raghuhar Dayal Tara~hand Damu.Sutar The State of Afaharnshtra Rag/111/",,. Dayal [1962) can be given for accusing the accused falsely. It can only be believed if there are no grounds for doubting it. at all. Apart from t.hc above considerations indicating that implicit reliance cannot he placed on the dying declaration, tlwro arc other circumstances which arlrl to tlrn foding of uncertainty about the truth of the aecusation ma1le in the dying declaration. The panehnama of the room shows that a few shirts nnd olrl trousers and pieces of two sarccs fay nenr the southern wall of tho room in a wet and half burnt condition. There is no explanation why such clothes should have been burnt. There was no point in the accused pouring kerosene oil on these clothes even if they just lay huddled near the wall.

If Sindhubai fell on the clothes lying there, that may burn some of them, but will not explain their getting wet. There is no suggestion that any-· body had poured wnter over the burnt clothes in order to extinguish the fire, because none came there a~ all. In fact, Ranganath Sitaram, P.W. 6, one of the Panchs, states that the burnt clothes were also giving smell of rock oil. The panchnama furtl1 er n otcs : "On the eastern wall, two feet height from tho grounrl there is a black spot caused due to the burning of tJw clothes and the same is recont one." Thero is no explanation why such a mark should be there. Sindhubai could not have stood opposite the w:iJl and, oven if she did, there should have been marks of burning along the length of her body beside the wall and not at a certain spot only. These two observations can be consistent only with somebody deliberately setting fire ·to the clothes and keeping some burning clothe~ beside the. w&ll for a little time.

The appellant, or whoever 2 s.c.R. set fire to her clothes, would not have done this as he would have made a \'Pry quick exit. after drenching Sindhubai with kei'osene oil and setting fire to her clothes. Sindhubai does not. make env statement about such a conduct of the accused i~ her dying declaration. The onl:v inference then possible is that she herself did all this, in accordance with her own inclinations. 'Vhv Rhe did this, one camrnt say. Sindhulmi r<•tm1w1l to lwr housn "'ith her daughter after taking hPr mi1l-rlay mral at her mother's housn aml s<mt l>1tt•k the daughter with Usha. This is according to the statement of hC'r mother. She brought the child, when, according to her mother's ~tatcment, she expected her husband to come to tho house after tu.king his meal at his cousin's place. The 1·1mduct is unusual, as, ordinarily, the ehilrl used to remain with her muternal grand-mother during foe day time, as for some reason the accused probn bly felt aversion to her.

The conduct euu be L'Onsistent with her intention to !'Ommit suiride. She brought the child to her pluc:e to fondle wit.h her for the last t.ime and th1m Kl'nt h<>r baek to hN mot.her. Sindhuhai'~ running towards t.J1e house of Shantubui, her hu8hand 'H eousin, an<l not running towards her mother'H place, also appears to be unnatural. It may lw t.hat in such troublous moments one need not be absolutely logical, but it is expected to be instinctive that when in trouble one thinks of one 'R relations who are expected to be sympathetic:, anti holpful, on the occ~asion. It is in the statement of her mother that. the route to her house is diffnnnt from the paxsage to the house of Shantabai. It may lw thnt the uecused did not go to the house as expected, and went. away to his job from his cousin's place. It was a day of festival. Sindhubai might have felt this conduct badly, set fire to her clothes, and then rnn towards Tam ch and /lamu FJutal'

T/ie St"te of Maharashtra Raghubar Da'1ia I Tarachand Drr.mu ,qutar 'Jl/1r /{lair; nf Mahnras.1d1:a Ragl11f/;rn· JJnyal (1962] Shantabai's house where she might have expected her husband to be present. ThP timP of the incidt'nt though R::licl to be betwcPn 1-30 and 3-30 P.11r., app0arn to lrnve bf'en near about 3 0' i'lock. The mot.h!'r staks to have got informat.ion about th11t time. The police got information at 11hout 3-4ii r.M., anrl the amhnlance t.ook Rimllmbai to the hospital at -i-lii r.M. The ac:('uqed wnR not cxpect1·d to lJe at his house at 3 P.l\L The learned Judgl's of the High Court rlid not believe tho defence evidence about the accused working at the house ofMulchan<l Rajmal from about 2 r.M. and to have gone to his house on receiving information from onl' Daga, bccm1se Daga was not examined, the Munim of the house-owner w1s not examined ·md the register of workers was not procluced.

It is however tho case for the prosecu- ' tion that the accused used to go to work at 7 A.l\L, to return at 12 O'clock and again go for work at 2 P.M., and then return at 6 P.M. Ch'1ndrabhaga, thr mother of the deceased, deposes so. ThPre is thcreforr no good reason to think that the areuserl ditl not go to his dut.y at 2 r.M., that day as deposer! to hy D.W. 1. Sinrlhuhai hNself stated in her statement to the police th 'It the accnscrl, after setting her on fire, ran away to his wol'k. If the time of the incidl'nt he ~n.lculated from tho time the police was informed, i. e., from 3-45 P.M., tho incident would have taken place some time between 3 and 3-30 P.M., and the accused would not have been at his house at that time. In fact, it appears to us that it is to avoid this difficulty that at some stage an attempt was made to time the incident at about 1-30 P.M. The incident could not have taken place before 2 P.M., as, in that C'ase, information to the police would be very belated and in the normal course of events, it is not expected that Sindhubai would have tarried in the room for long or that the persons who must have collected after her running towards Shantabai's place and falling down there, would not have taken steps to inform the polic·e without any undue delay.

Tho motlwr's statPm0nt that Rindhu hai used to toll her that if tJw ill-trentmPnt <'outinued, she woul<l Hl'VCl' hnr comwd ion wit.h tlw aceuscd and would earn her own living, would support tl1e view that she had rcall:v got tri<'<l of her living witl). the al'euscd and that this "nuld lmv<' 1n·ompt1'1l her to atto1,11pt suicide. If Sindhubai was not actually asleep wh<'n the kerosene oil was poured on her, it docs not stand to reason that she would not hav<' marl0 anv attempt to run away aml the possibility of th'e accusml sucu1'-'>Rfully setting fire to her r.lothPR in tht• course of the stniggle, would bo remote, 1iml oven if he sucu0c<krl, it is a moot point whethel' lw too woulrl n.it, ha1·1• lH'<'n Ring<'<I. if not hnmt. Th<%' :tl'e tlw v!ll'ious considcratimrn which m11lrn UR fo<'l 1lonhtf11l ahont tho truth of j,)w <lying <ledal'ation nn<l tnke the vi<'W j,]111t tlw appell1int's cmwietion on thn lusis of the rlving rfoelarat,ion should not ho m::dntninerl.

It nppr>ars from the High Court jurlgmont. that tho r.1so put !1oforc it wns 'somet.ime after l.30 r. >!., the nccuso<l fatolwd tho room from iusidn and while Sindhuhai was sleeping he pourcrl ~ large quantity of kerosene oil on her person. Her clothes became wet with that kerosene oil and before she could struggle and get up he searched for a match stick, lighted it and set Sindhu's clothes on fire'. Such a cnse could not be made out from the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate. Sindhubai had said at first she was sleeping when it happened, but, in answer to the very next question, she siid that her husband beat her and then burnt her. If the burning followed the beating, there could be no question of throwing keresene oil on Tar,,chand Dn'!itU 1.9utar The St,,te nf Jvfa/;araslitm Rngll'lf/,ar D"71" I Tarachand Damu l~utnr The Stnte nf Maharashtra Ttnr1huhar Drtynl [1962] her while asleep. No re<ison for this conduct was stated.

The Magistrate who cleared the doubtful points failed to elicit why this deed was P.erpetmted. }j'nrther, the searching for a match box is very improbable thing. If.the accused had decided to set fire to his wifo, he would have got a match box handy and if he clid forget about it and had ,to search for it, that would give sufficient time to Sindhuhai to make goorl her escape. The aversion of Sinclhub'1i to tell the name of her husband coulrl not have been on account of any tender feeling for lwr husband, but was the nntur.-il act of a Hindu marriPl1 woman not to tell her husband's name. This aversion to tell the name of her lmsbancl is no guarantee of the truth of her subsequent statement accusing her lmAhanrl of the crime. We do not. find any justification for the following observation of the High Court, when considering the defence 1wirlence : "The accused has led evidence and his case is that he was not responsible for this murder nt all.

But in fo..t. lw was in the houRe when 1.lw ineident took plae<e." The High Conrt had made tlw .latter statemPnt as a statement of fact., though there was no evidence t.o support it. Of conrn1', on the bnRis of a dying declaration, the High Comt had alrPacly held before discussing the defrnl'e 0vidence, that the accused was responsible for tlw murder of hiR wife. If tho defence evidence is to he adjudgl'<l on t,Jie basis of the final finding of the C'ourt, therr is no use for defence evidenl'{'. It has to be taken into consideration before arriving ai a final finding. The conduct of the act,nsed in travelling in the same ambulance car and in remaining in the RUPREME COURT REPORTR 79::1 hospital is in his favour and is against the prosecution. The accused stated in his oxamination that he paicl thc charges for the amlrnlanco cnr.

We would like to remark t.hat tho learned .Jwlges who hcarrl the ap]W<l.l shonld not. have !101J.rd it wlwn t.hcy, at the tim<" ol' :vlmitting it, folt so strongly about the accnsccl lwinp: '1Tongly acquitted of the offence of nnmll'I' tlrnt tlwv asked 1-lw Governmenh Pleader to look into the. papers to fincl out wlwther it was a <'asc where tho Government won Id like to filn :m P.ppPal ag~i1rnt tlw ar'- quittal, under s. 302, I.P.C. Govcrmnrnt clid fi]p nn appeal against t,hat acquittal. W c clo not lmnw whether it was at the suggestion of the Government Pleader or not. But, in these circumstam:Ps, it w011ltl have bePn hotter exercise of discretion if this appeal against tho acquittal had not hrPn heard by the same Bench which, in a wa~', sugg<'sterl the filing of the Government appt>al. In fart, to mn.h:c• Rnc·l1 n. R11_ggnstio11, ;l,l•JH'tiT:-; tn lH' \'f'!'~~ ahnnn:1al.

We are therefore o[ opinion that it iR not satisfactorily proved that the appcI!ant eommitft•cl the murder of hiR wife by setting fire to ltrr clothes. We would therefore :i.Ilow the appeal, set aHide the order of the Court. below am! at·quit. the appellant of this offence. BY COURT. In accordance with t.he opinion of the majority, this appeal fail8 uncl is dismissed. Tarachand !Ja1n1t S11far Th State of kfa/ufroshfr;J Rrtg/11cb11r /)11.1f11l