LexSANTOSH S/O SHANKAR PAWAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 4 S.C.R. 962 SANTOSH S/O SHANKAR PAWAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No.683 of 2015) APRIL 21, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] c Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Husband suspected wife of infidelity, assaulted her and furlher set her on fire by pouring kerosene over her person - Wife suffered 60% burn injuries and later succumbed to her injuries - Her dying declaration was recorded - On the o basis of the dying declaration and the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, order of conviction and sentence of the husband uls. 302 by courls below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courls below based on evidence - There E being clear evidence as to the act of the accused to set the wife on fire, absence of pre-meditation would not reduce the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Subsequent pouring of water by the husband would not mitigate the offence of murder - Act of pouring F kerosene though in a spur of moment, followed by lighting a match stick, throwing it and thereby setting her ablaze are intimately connected with each other and resulted in causing the death. G Crime against women - Bride burning cases - Duty of the courl - Held: Whenever the guilt of the accused is brought home beyond reasonable doubt, the Courl to deal with it sternly and award maximum penalty prescribed by H 962 SANTOSH S/O SHANKAR PAWAR v. STATE OF 963 MAHARASHTRA law such that it may operate as deterrence to other persons A from committing such offence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Where the intention to kill is present, the 8 act amounts to murder, where such an intention is absent, the act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. To determine whether the offender had the intention or not, each case must be decided on its facts and circumstances. From the facts c and circumstances of the instant case, it is evident that there was a homicide, namely the death of the wife; the deceased was set ablaze by the appellant and this act was not accidental or unintentional; and the post mortem certificate revealed that deceased died due to D shock and septicaemia caused by 60% burn injuries. When there is clear evidence as to the act of the accused to set the deceased on fire, absence of pre- meditation would not reduce the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [Para 10] E [969-H; 970-A-E] 1.2 On facts, there was no provocation for the accused to pour kerosene and set her on fire. Act of pouring kerosene, though in a spur of moment, the F same was followed by lighting a match stick and throwing it on the deceased and thereby setting her ablaze. Both the acts are intimately connected with each other and resulted in causing the death of the deceased and the act of the accused is punishable for G murder. Even assuming that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, act of the accused falls under clause (iv) of Section 300 IPC that is the act of causing injury so imminently dangerous where it will in all probability cause death. Any person H 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A of average intelligence would have the knowledge that pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that in all probability such an act would cause injuries causing death. [Paras 11, 12] [970-G-H; 971-A-B] B 1.3 The accused was in his complete senses, knowing fully well the consequences of his act. The subsequent act of pouring water by the accused on the deceased also appears to be an attempt to cloak his C guilt since he did it only when the deceased screamed for help. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mitigating factor. An act undertaken by a person in full awareness, knowing its consequences cannot be treated at par with an act committed by a person in a D highly inebriated condition where his faculty of reason becomes blurred. [Para 14] [972-A-C] 1.4 Upon analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, courts below recorded concurrent E findings that the accused caused the death of deceased and convicted the appellant. The concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless the findings are perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on record. In the totality of the facts and circumst
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.