(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
State of Maharashtra _______________________________ Appellant;
v.
Vikram Rangnath Keshbhat ________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 288 of 2018 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 670 of 2017], decided on February 19, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The State of Maharashtra is in appeal before this Court challenging an order of the High Court by which the conviction of the accused respondent has been altered from Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence is modified to the period undergone which is about five years.
3. We have considered the materials on record. The case of the prosecution is sought to be built on the basis of the dying declarations of the deceased and the testimony of PW-7 – Rani, the minor daughter (three and half years old) in whose presence the incident is alleged to have taken place. The dying declarations clearly implicate the accused respondent and establish that it is the accused respondent who had poured kerosene on the deceased and burnt her to death. This is also the testimony of PW-7, who was also present at the place of occurrence (which fact was duly mentioned in the dying declaration of the deceased).
4. That apart, the High Court has held that the present is a case of grave and sudden provocation which the accused respondent was faced with on coming to know of the extra-marital affairs of the deceased. Accordingly, the High Court thought it proper to alter the conviction and sentence as aforesaid.
5. Having regard to the dying declarations and the fact that the materials on record indicate that the accused respondent had purchased one liter of kerosene earlier and had kept the same in the motocycle which he used later to commit the crime, we are of the view that the above facts sufficiently indicate the fact that the crime committed was premeditated and was not in the heat of the moment.
6. Having regard to the overwhelming evidence on record we unhesitatingly take the view that the High Court was not correct in altering the conviction of the accused respondent under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part I IPC. We accordingly allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court; and restore the conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. The accused respondent is directed to surrender forthwith and serve out the remaining period of sentence.
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 670/2017
The State of Maharashtra ____________________________ Petitioner
v.
Vikram Rangnath Keshbhat ________________________ Respondent
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 648/2017)
Date: 19-02-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
9. The accused respondent is directed to surrender forthwith and serve out the remaining period of sentence.
———
