INDUBAI RAMESH DANVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24207


                                                                    CriAppeal-150-2026
                                                    -1-

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2026

                 Indubai w/o Ramesh Danve,
                 Age – 43 years, Occupation – Household,
                 R/o. Javkheda Khurd, Taluka Bhokardan,
                 District Jalna.                                 … Appellant
                         Versus
                 1.      The State of Maharashtra,
                         Through Police Station Officer,
                         Police Station, Hasnabad,
                         Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna.
                 2.    Yamunabai w/o Raju Danve,
                       Age – 39 years, Occupation Service,
                       R/o. Javkheda Khurd, Taluka Bhokardan,
                       District Jalna.
                                                   ..…
                 Ms. Ashwini Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellant (appointed)
                 Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
                 Mr. Nitin S. Ingle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                   …..
                                           CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                           Reserved on   : 19.06.2026
                                           Pronounced on : 22.06.2026
                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.      In this appeal there is challenge to the judgment and order

                 dated 27.06.2023 passed by learned District Judge-6 Additional

                 Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 199/2021 convicting the

                 appellant for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC and

                 sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for five (05) years and to pay

                 fine.
                                                      CriAppeal-150-2026
                                   -2-




2.    Before trial court, prosecution was launched on the premise

that on, 09.06.2021 present appellant called informant PW1 to her

house for tea and there, she threw hot oil on her person causing

injuries to her upper limbs, right side of face and anterior chest wall,

i.e. burns to the extent of 40 to 45%. While being treated, her

statement was recorded by police, on the basis of which crime was

registered, it was investigated and on gathering evidence, accused

was duly chargesheeted for commission of offence under Sections

307, 326, 342 of IPC. Accused faced trial vide above Sessions Case

during which prosecution adduced evidence of in all eight witnesses

and on its analysis, trial court held the charges to be proved but to the

extent of only Section 326 of IPC and trial court acquitted the

appellant from charges under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC.



      Aggrieved by the above judgment and order of conviction for

offence under Section 326 of IPC, appellant has come up in appeal.



3.    Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was

false implication and there was no convincing evidence that accused

poured/threw hot oil. It is pointed out that, there was no

corroboration to the testimony of informant. That, the so called eye
                                                     CriAppeal-150-2026
                                     -3-

witness had hearsay information. That, even the child witness

happens to be son of informant and he was tutored and therefore

there was no distinct legally acceptable evidence on behalf of

prosecution. He submitted that, trial court rightly acquitted the

accused from offence under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC, however,

conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 326 IPC was in

absence of cogent and reliable evidence. That, grievous hurt was not

proved, and therefore she seeks indulgence by allowing the appeal

and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction. At

the end, she also pointed out that, even otherwise appellant has

already suffered the sentence awarded vide the impugned judgment

and she is already set at liberty.



4.    Learned APP for State as well as learned counsel for respondent

no.2 would justify the order of conviction pointing out that, there was

credible evidence of injured-informant herself, to which there was

corroboration from the evidence of immediate neighbour to the house

of accused, who had come to her rescue. That, even son of informant

had reached the scene of occurrence immediately. That, immediately

after the incident, there was disclosure of the act of accused by the

informant. That, same day there was FIR and even medical expert

confirms grievous injuries and therefore, according to them, no fault
                                                    CriAppeal-150-2026
                                   -4-

can be found in the impugned judgment. For want of merits, they

both pray to dismiss the appeal.



5.    Heard. Re-appreciated the evidence. In the trial court,

prosecution had adduced evidence of as many as eight witnesses.

Crucial evidence is that of PW1 informant at Exhibit 30, PW2

immediate neighbour of accused at Exhibit 34, PW4 son of injured-

informant at Exhibit 39 and PW8 medical expert at Exhibit 67.



6.    PW1 informant, in her evidence has stated that, on 09.06.2021

when she left the house for work around 10.00 a.m., after reaching

the house of accused, she was called by accused for a cup of tea and

accordingly she accompanied accused inside the house and noticed oil

already being boiled in a utensil. On query to that extent by

informant, accused told her that she was boiling the oil for cooking

purpose. Initially accused served tea to the informant in a saucer and

while informant was having it, suddenly accused poured boiling oil on

her right side of the body and latched the door from outside.

Therefore informant raised hue and cry, upon which Kamlabai Danve

(PW2), Radha Danve and others came to her rescue, changed her

clothes and took her to Aastha Hospital on account of burns to the

head, ear, both hands, face, chest and thigh.
                                                   CriAppeal-150-2026
                                 -5-




7.    PW2 Kamlabai who was residing in the neighbourhood of the

house of accused, claims to have heard hue and cry and had come to

the house of accused and claims to have seen informant in injured

condition and informant disclosing her that accused Indubai had

poured hot oil on her person, and therefore she being taken to

hospital.



8.    There is also evidence of PW4 Ritesh, son of informant, and he

also deposed that around 10.50 a.m., while he was sitting in front of

the house on platform, accused came and asked his mother to

accompany her for tea and therefore he and his mother both went to

the house of accused. On reaching there, accused asked son of

informant to go out of her house and so he returned to his house. He

further deposed that, on hearing shouts of his mother he went to the

house of accused and his mother disclosed that Indubai poured

boiling oil on her.



9.    Though PW2 and PW4 are subjected to cross, their testimonies

on the point of occurrence has remained undisturbed. They both

claim to have heard about the occurrence immediately from

informant when they had rushed there after hearing hue and cry.
                                                      CriAppeal-150-2026
                                   -6-

Therefore, these two witness, who are res gestae witnesses, support

informant’s evidence.



10.   Next is the evidence of doctor PW8, who has deposed that on

09.06.2021 at around 11.00 a.m., injured had come to the hospital

with history of hot oil being thrown on her face and body, and

examining and noticing deep burs to right upper limb, left upper limb,

right side of the face, over anterior chest wall extending to the back

and upper abdomen. According to him, informant had suffered 40 to

45% burns and the age of injury was fresh. Doctor also opined that

injuries are possible by hot oily substance and that the injuries were

grievous.



11.   Therefore, testimony of complainant also finds support from

medical expert. CA reports are placed on record which are at Exhibit

64, which show that articles seized carried traces of vegetable oil and

therefore, apart from medical evidence, there is support from

scientific evidence.



12.   Though there was charge under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC, in

the light of evidence of doctor, it was not proved that injuries suffered

by informant were life threatening. However, doctor had already
                                                      CriAppeal-150-2026
                                   -7-

stated injures to be grievous in nature. Therefore, necessary

ingredients for attracting Section 326 of IPC were indeed available

before the trial court.



13.    Resultantly, in the light of availability of such evidence, in the

considered opinion of this Court, trial court committed no error in

recording offence under Section 326 of IPC. There is no infirmity,

illegality or perversity in the findings and appreciation and hence,

there being no merits in the appeal, following order is passed :

                                 ORDER

I.    The appeal is dismissed.


II.   Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent the appellant
      be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, High
      Court, Aurangabad, as per Rules.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



vre