SHRI VIJAY S/O. AMRIT PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46579


                                                                       CriAppeal-163-2016
                                                     -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2016

                 Shri Vijay s/o Amrit Patil
                 Age : 35 years, Occupation : Nil,
                 R/o : Eklahare, Taluka Amalner,
                 District Jalgaon.                                  … Appellant.

                       Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra
                 Through the PSO, Marwad Police Station,
                 Marwad, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon.         … Respondent
                                                  …..
                            Mr. Paresh B. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
                          Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for the Respondent/State.
                                                   .....

                                          CORAM :          ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                          Reserved on          : 05.10.2026
                                          Pronounced on        : 06.10.2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    Appellant, a convict, hereby challenges the judgment and order

                 of conviction dated 28.01.2016 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional

                 Sessions Judge, Amalner in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2013 convicting

                 appellant for charge under Section 306 of IPC.



                 2.    Informant PW2 Prakash, father of deceased Surekha, set law

                 into motion alleging that his daughter was married to accused 15

                 years prior to the incident and out of said wedlock, she had a son as
                                                    CriAppeal-163-2016
                                 -2-

well as a daughter. Accused husband was addicted to liquor and he,

under its influence, used to beat Surekha and forcibly take away her

earnings from labour work. That, on 25.07.2013, husband came home

drunk, picked up quarrel with her and then poured kerosene over her

and suggested her to die. Surekha, in the rage of anger, incinerated

herself and suffered 98% burns and her dying declaration was

recorded both, by Police Head Constable as well as by Magistrate.

While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to the burns. On report

of father, crime was registered bearing No. 25 of 2013 for offence

under Section 498-A, 306, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Investigation was

carried out by PW7 and he duly chargesheeted accused, who was

tried by above referred court and the trial ended up in conviction but

only for offence under Section 306 of IPC. Accused has been acquitted

from charge under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. Hence,

instant appeal by convict.



      BRIEF ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

3.    PW1 mother, in her evidence at Exhibit 32, deposed about

marriage of her daughter with accused. That, accused used to

consume liquor, beat Surekha and demand amount earned by her

from labour work. That, for some period, they both shifted to Surat

but there also he used to quarrel with her. He also beat her in the
                                                    CriAppeal-163-2016
                                 -3-

marriage of a relative. After they had returned at Eklahare, accused

had beaten her daughter, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.



      While under cross, she admitted that her daughter used to

come for festivals. She denied that when she and her husband went to

meet her in Civil Hospital, she was unconscious and was unable to

speak. Omission is brought only to the extent that after birth of

children, accused and Surekha had been to Surat for job. Rest is all

denial.



4.    PW2 informant father also deposed as like his wife about

accused husband consuming liquor, quarreling with deceased, in a

marriage he beating Surekha on the head and demanding cash from

her and on such count, beating her. He deposed about message being

received regarding her burns on 25.07.2013. He claims that in the

hospital, there was dying declaration by Surekha. That, accused

poured kerosene on her. However, he deposed that he does not

remember what she stated thereafter and that he passed information

to police and lodged report.



      While under cross, he admitted that her daughter and accused

stayed at Surat for five to seven years and that, he and his wife used
                                                      CriAppeal-163-2016
                                   -4-

to visit her on festivals and she also came for festivals to their place.

He denied that, he falsely stated that accused demanded money

earned by Surekha and that he beat her under influence of liquor.

Rest is all denial. He identified khabar Exhibit 34 and report Exhibit

35.



5.    PW3 and PW4 have acted as pancha to spot and seizure

respectively, but they did not support prosecution.



6.    PW5 is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postmortem and

issued cause of death as “shock due to burns”.



7.    PW6 is the Executive         Magistrate,   who on receipt of

communication from police, claims to have visited Civil Hospital,

approached Medical Officer and requested him to examine fitness to

give dying declaration and obtained necessary endorsement. He

identified dying declaration noted by him at Exhibits 53 and 54.



      While under cross, he admitted not mentioning timing of

receipt of Exhibit 51 i.e. requisition. He answered that burns ward

and office of Civil Surgeon are at distinct places. He admitted noting

dying declaration on a printed form. He admitted that when he
                                                      CriAppeal-163-2016
                                   -5-

inquired with the patient as to who was present at the time of

incident, she did not reply said question. He admitted there to be no

noting on the dying declaration about statement being read over and

he admitted not obtaining signature of a person for attestation over

toe impression.



8.    PW7 is the Investigating Officer who carried out investigation

and chargesheeted accused.



9.    PW8 is the Medical Officer who, on request of Special Executive

Magistrate, examined patient and finding her conscious and oriented,

gave certification of her fitness over Exhibit 54 after which, she claims

that, in her presence dying declaration was recorded and she was

present there till its end. She deposed that after some time, Police

Constable Khairnar also came there for recording dying declaration

and he also gave remark of fitness.


      While under cross, she answered that patient suffered deep

burns. She denied that, pulse rate of the patient was feeble. She

admitted that, in cases of burns blood pressure reduces and patient

may go in coma, but she denied that in such case, patient is not in

position to make statement. She volunteered that in this case, the

patient was conscious and oriented.
                                                     CriAppeal-163-2016
                                  -6-




                            SUBMISSIONS


On behalf of the Appellant-Accused :


10.   Pointing to the above evidence, learned counsel for appellant,

at the outset, would submit that learned trial court has acquitted

accused husband from charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and

506 of IPC. According to him, evidence before learned trial court on

behalf of prosecution was, statements of parents and dying

declaration. According to him, parents have hearsay information and

dying declaration is not free from doubt as there was no attestation to

the toe impression and he doubts capacity of deceased to give dying

declaration.



11.   Learned counsel pointed out that, oral dying declaration is

rightly discarded by learned trial court and according to him, dying

declaration by Police Constable cannot be gone into because the

author Constable is not examined before learned trial court. He would

point out that here, the incident apparently seems to have happened

in a rage of anger resulting from quarrel. He further pointed out that,

there are mere allegations that husband poured kerosene, but ignition

is by deceased herself and that too in annoyance. According to him,
                                                    CriAppeal-163-2016
                                 -7-

accused was not responsible for burning as he had no intention or

mens rea that deceased should ignite herself. That, it was act

attributable to deceased herself and accused cannot be held

responsible by imputing instigation or abetment. According to him,

husband did not abet, induce or instigate so as to attract offence of

Section 306 IPC. According to him, learned trial court has failed to

consider and appreciate the settled law, and he seeks reliance on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of

Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618; Prakash and others v. State of

Maharashtra and another (2026) 6 SCC 251 and the judgment of

Telangana High Court in Cherukupally v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh MANU/TL/2651/2022 [Criminal Appeal No. 447 of 2009

decided on 02.08.2022], and ultimately prays to apply the same and

set aside the impugned judgment by allowing the appeal.



On behalf of the Respondent-State :


12.   Per contra, learned APP would support the judgment and order

of conviction by pointing out that, accused allegedly beat deceased on

the relevant day and thereafter he poured kerosene on her after

which, he also suggested her to die and consequent to such

instigation only, deceased ignited herself. According to him, there is
                                                   CriAppeal-163-2016
                                 -8-

voluntary and trustworthy dying declaration and the same has rightly

been considered and appreciated by learned trial court. For above

reasons, he prays to dismiss the appeal by maintaining the judgment

of conviction.



                   ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION


13.   On re-appreciating the entire evidence, it is emerging that,

here, though prosecution has adduced evidence of 8 witnesses, crucial

evidence is of parents and the dying declaration recorded by the

Special Executive Magistrate.



14.   Admittedly, there is no dispute that accused and deceased are

husband and wife. There is also no dispute that deceased suffered

98% burns and succumbed to the same. Charge of prosecution is that,

accused abetted the suicide.



15.   Here, both parents PW1 and PW2, who are examined at

Exhibits 32 and 33 respectively, are consistent about accused husband

addicted to liquor, he picking up quarrel and beating Surekha. They

are also found to be consistent about he forcibly taking away her

earnings. To this extent, both witnesses are lending support to each
                                                       CriAppeal-163-2016
                                   -9-

other. Both of them have indeed received message about their

daughter suffering burns and they visited her at Civil Hospital.

However, PW1 mother has not stated about any oral dying

declaration given by their daughter which PW2 has deposed.

However, his testimony is ambiguous as he merely stated that his

daughter informed him that there was quarrel between his daughter

and accused and that accused poured kerosene on her daughter.

Stating so much, he deposed that he does not remember what else she

disclosed. He is silent about the part of his daughter igniting herself.



16.   Another piece of evidence here is the dying declaration Exhibit

54 recorded by PW6 Special Executive Magistrate. This witness at

Exhibit 51 deposed about receiving requisition from police Exhibit 52,

carrying the same to Dhule Civil Hospital, approaching Medical

Officer on duty, requesting him to examine the patient and to

ascertain whether she was in a position to give statement, and after

examination and endorsement, he recording dying declaration Exhibit

54. Though cross examined and though this witness has admitted that

he did not mention the timing of receiving Exhibit 51, the patient to

be wrapped in bandage and undergoing treatment, and though he

admitted that dying declaration was recorded on a printed form,

except stating that patient did not reply to his question as to who was
                                                       CriAppeal-163-2016
                                  -10-

present at the time of incident, there is nothing to doubt the exercise

taken by him i.e. visiting Civil Hospital for recording dying

declaration and after meeting doctor, on his examination, receiving

certification of fitness, he recorded dying declaration.



17.   In the dying declaration at Exhibit 54 deceased reported that on

25.07.2013 at around 11.30 a.m., her husband came home under

influence of liquor and without reason, abused her and on being

questioned to that extent, he allegedly poured kerosene from the

drum available in the house and suggested her to die. She deposed

that, out of annoyance and anger, she ignited herself.



18.   In the above dying declaration, there is certification of doctor at

the beginning as well as at the end, and the same has been identified

by Medical Officer PW8. Therefore, mere failure to take attestation

over the toe impression will not render the entire dying declaration,

which is otherwise convincing and voluntary, doubtful or unworthy of

credence. The same is recorded on the same day and is thus a prompt

dying declaration.



19.   Learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously submit

that accused husband did not ignite her, but deceased ignited herself.
                                                      CriAppeal-163-2016
                                  -11-

Therefore, according to him, appellant cannot be said to be having

mens rea or that he abetted or instigated the suicide and thereby

learned counsel finds fault in the conclusion drawn by learned trial

court and guilt recorded for offence under Section 306 of IPC. He

would add that, deceased had incinerated herself in the rage of anger

and accused never desired the suicide by burning.



20.   However, here, it is to be noted that on the relevant day, after

coming home in aberrated condition, he allegedly abused her and on

being questioned, he allegedly beat her and thereafter he went to the

extent of pouring kerosene on her and he did not stop there, but also

suggested her to die, and it is thereafter that deceased ignited herself,

though in anger. Here, there is active participation by accused in

pouring kerosene.



21.   The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra

v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, dealt

with the aspect of abetment, the meaning of words ‘instigation’ and

‘goading’ and opined that, “there should be an intention to provoke,

incite or encourage the doing of an act by the later. Each person’s

suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his

own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to
                                                      CriAppeal-163-2016
                                    -12-

lay down any straitjacket forumla in dealing with such cases. Each

case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and

circumstances”.


22.    Similarly in the case of S. S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

and another (2010) 12 SCC 190, in para 25, the Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed as under :


      “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
      person or intentionally aiding (emphasis laid) a person in
      doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the
      accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
      cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and
      the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in
      order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has
      to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
      requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased
      to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have
      been intended to push the deceased into such a position
      that he committed suicide.”



23.    Applying the above settled legal position and reverting to the

facts of the case in hand, here, as stated above, after beating

deceased, appellant had done a positive act first by pouring kerosene

on his wife, and he further went to the extent of suggesting her to die.

This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is clear instigation and
                                                      CriAppeal-163-2016
                                 -13-

provocation. Even his mens rea is explicit as his intentions are clear,

for he himself had poured kerosene on her and suggested her to die.

Therefore, even though deceased completed the rest of the part in

anger, accused had landed deceased in such situation wherein she

had taken the extreme step of igniting herself. Applying the

Explanation 2 of Section 107, responsibility can be fixed on accused

husband. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, in the light

of peculiar facts of this case, the same is a fit case for attracting

charge of abetment to commit suicide. Facts in the case in hand and

the cases relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinct

and the same does not come to the rescue of the appellant.



24.   Perused the judgment impugned herein. Learned trial court has

thereby committed no error in returning guilt of the appellant for

offence under Section 306 of IPC. There being no perversity or

illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the

following order is passed :

                               ORDER

                  The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.



                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre