RAVINDRA TUKARAM HIWALE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 02-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2010) 9 S.C.R. 454 
RAVINDRA TUKARAM HIWALE 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419-1420 of 2010) 
AUGUST 2, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 306 and 498-A - A married woman causing her death 
by burning herself - Husband convicted ulss 306 and 498-A 
and sentenced to four years and one year's RI respectively -
High Court enhancing sentence u/s 306 to six years - HELD: 
0 In the light of the dying declaration made by the deceased 
that she had quarrelled with her husband that very morning, 
i.e. the date of occurrence, (which is a common place 
happening amongst young married couples}, High Court was 
not 1ustified in holding that the accused was liable to an 
enhancement in the sentence on account of his quarrelsome 
E nature - It must also be emphasized that the interference of 
the appellate court on the quantum of sentence should be rare 
and only in exceptional cases - Section 306 provides for a 
sentence which may extend to 10 years and it was the 
prerogative of trial court to award a sentence up to 10 years -
F Trial court gave a positive finding that there was no 
misbehaviour on the part of the accused over a period of time 
and the incident was a spontaneous one arising out of a family 
quarrel in the morning - The finding of High Court based on 
two letters written about a year before the incident would, 
G therefore, have little value in the light of the dying declaration 
- The incident happened in February, 1990 and the accused 
has undergone about four years of the sentence -
The 
sentence awarded by High Court is quashed and the judgment 
of trial court confirmed - Criminal Law - Interference with 
H 
454 
RAVINDRA TUKARAM HIWALE v. STATE OF 
455 
MAHARASHTRA 
quantum of sentence by appellate court - Propriety of -
A 
Sentence. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. : 1419-1420 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.08.2006 of the High 
B 
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 53 & 199 of 1991. 
B. Sridhar for the Appellant. 
Shankar Chillargee, Asha G. Nair, Ravindra Keshavrao 
C 
Adsure for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
The appellant was married with the deceased Alka after 
D 
the death of his first wife. As per the prosecution story at about 
7.00 a.m. on 6th February, 1990 the deceased suffered serious 
burn injuries in the kitchen of the house and ultimately died of 
E 
those injuries. It is the prosecution case that at about 8.30 a.m. 
on the 9th February 1990 she made a dying declaration to 
PW.10 - a Police Head Constable, in which she stated that she 
had a quarrel with her husband over the house-hold chores and 
over the feeding of the children and she had thereafter poured 
F 
kerosene on herself and then burnt herself. 
The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence 
convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 
498-A and to a sentence of one year and under Section 306 
to a sentence of four years. The appellant thereafter filed an 
G 
appeal in the High Court of Bombay whereas the State of 
Maharashtra also filed an appeal pleading for a higher 
sentence. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The 
appeal filed by the State was allowed and the sentence 
awarded by the Trial Court under Section 306 IPC was 
H 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A enhanced from four to six years. It is in this situation that the 
matter is before us. 
The learned counsel for the appellant has made only one 
argument before us. He has submitted that the High Court had 
8 observed that the appellant appeared to be of a quarrelsome 
and aggressive nature and as evidence of his behaviour had 
placed reliance on two letters which required that a heavy 
sentence should be imposed. We see, however, that in the light 
of the dying declaration made by the deceased that she had 
quarreled with her husband that very morning (which is a 
C common place happening amongst young married couples), 
the High Court was not justified in holding that the appellant was 
liable to an enhancement in the sentence on account of his 
quarrelsome nature. We must also emphasize that the 
interference of the appellate court on the quantum of sentence 
D should be rare and only in exceptional cases. Section 306 of 
the !PC provides for a sentence which may extend to 10 years. 
It was therefore the prer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.