SURAJ JAGANNATH JADHAV versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 13-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
SURAJ JAGANNATH JADHAV
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1885 of 2019)
DECEMBER 13, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.300 Fourthly & Exception 4 to s.300;
ss. 302 & 304 Part II – Appellant-accused killed his wife by setting
her ablaze – Convicted u/s.302 – Issue limited as to alteration of
conviction from s.302 to s.304 Part II – Held: Appellant poured the
kerosene on the deceased when she was trying to run out of the
house to save herself and was trying to open the latch of the door
of the house, the appellant threw the match-stick on her person and
set her ablaze – Nothing is on record that the appellant was in
inebriated stage –Even looking to the conversation between the
deceased and the appellant, as stated in the dying declaration given
by the her, it can safely be said that the appellant was in very much
conscious condition when the incident took place – He was very
much in senses and was conscious about what he was doing –He
was fully conscious of the fact that if kerosene is poured and match-
stick is lit and put on the body, a person might die due to burns –
Death of the deceased was culpable homicide amounting to murder
and s.300 fourthly shall be applicable and not Exception 4 to s.300,
as contended by the appellant – In complete agreement with the
view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the
appellant for the offence punishable u/s.302.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the present case, the appellant-accused poured
the kerosene on the deceased when she was trying to run out of
the house to save herself and was trying to open the latch of the
door of the house, the accused threw the match-stick on her
person and set her ablaze. Nothing is on record that the accused
was in a highly inebriated stage. Even looking to the conversation
which took place between the deceased and the accused, so stated
in the dying declaration given by the deceased, it can safely be
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 84
84
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
85
said that the accused was in very much conscious condition when
the incident took place. He was very much in the senses and was
conscious about what he was doing. Therefore, the accused was
fully conscious of the fact that if kerosene is poured and match-
stick is lit and put on the body, a person might die due to burns.
Therefore, the case would fall under Section 300 fourthly and
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shall not be applicable.
[Paras 5.1][88-C-E]
2. The manner in which the accused poured the kerosene
on the deceased and thereafter when she was trying to run away
from the room to save her, the accused came from behind and
threw a match-stick and set her ablaze, the death of the deceased
was a culpable homicide amounting to murder and Section 300
fourthly shall be applicable and not Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC as submitted on behalf of the accused.  In complete agreement
with the view taken by the Trial Court as well as the High Court
convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC. [Para 7][92-B-C]
Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 324 –
referred to.
Santosh v. State of  Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 641 :
[2015] 4 SCR 962 ; Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State
of Maharasthra (2014) 4 SCC 270 : [2014] 3 SCR
753 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2000) 10 SCC 324
referred to
Para 3
[2015] 4 SCR 962
relied on
Para 4.2
[2014] 3 SCR 753
relied on
Para 4.2
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1885 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 2013.
Sushil Karanjkar, Nikhilesh Kumar and K. N. Rai, Advs. for the
Appellant.
SURAJ JAGANNATH JADHAV v. THE STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar and Anoop Kandari, Advs.
for the Respondent.
 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 09.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 2013, by which the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein-original
accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the original accused has
preferred the present a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.