Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Shyam C. Chandak upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court directed that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Sessions Court in Solapur be maintained. The Bench categorically held that the offence did not fall within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby rejecting the plea for conversion of the charge to Section 304 Part I IPC. The High Court concluded that the appellant's conduct amounted to a deliberate and cruel act, rendering him ineligible for any leniency under the statute.

The Bench dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant and observed that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent dying declarations, corroborative witness testimonies, and forensic evidence. The court directed that there was no cause to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur. The connected interim applications were also disposed of with the final judgment.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case Under Section 387 IPC | Says Fear Of Death To Extort Money Is Punishable Even Without Actual Delivery

The case arose from an incident dated 10 February 2014 involving the appellant and his wife, Pushpa. The couple had been married for approximately 16 years and had three children. The appellant, reportedly a tailor by profession, was not engaged in regular employment. Instead, he was alleged to have been addicted to gambling and prone to long absences from the family home. Pushpa earned a livelihood by rolling bidis to support the family.

According to the prosecution, frequent domestic disputes had occurred between the appellant and Pushpa, particularly in the days leading up to the incident. On the night of the offence, at approximately 11:00 p.m., the appellant allegedly initiated a quarrel with Pushpa, poured kerosene over her, and set her ablaze. Their children were present during the incident. The daughter, referred to in the record as PW-3, attempted to extinguish the flames but was reportedly stopped by the appellant, who then locked the children outside and fled the scene.

Pushpa’s brother was informed and transported her to the hospital. Two dying declarations were subsequently recorded—one by a Special Executive Magistrate and another by a Police Constable—both certified by medical officers for her fitness to provide a statement. Pushpa succumbed to her injuries the following day.

The appellant was arrested on the same night. The police conducted a spot panchnama, collected forensic evidence, and recorded statements from key witnesses. The forensic examination later confirmed the presence of kerosene on the appellant’s clothes and other materials from the scene.

Eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including:

• PW-3, the daughter of the deceased and the appellant,

• PW-4, the landlord,

• PW-5, the deceased’s brother,

• PW-7, the Special Executive Magistrate,

• PW-8, the medical officer,

• PW-9, the Police Constable,

• PW-6, who conducted the post-mortem examination.

The trial concluded with a conviction under Section 302 IPC and imposition of life imprisonment.

The court recorded the consistency and credibility of the testimonies and dying declarations. It stated "We do not find any material discrepancy in both the dying declarations. The story is consistent that, at about 10:00 p.m., the Appellant picked up a quarrel with the deceased Pushpa. He poured kerosene on her and set her on fire."

Addressing the procedural integrity, the court noted "The SEM himself had put questions to the deceased and after being satisfied about her state, he had recorded the dying declaration. Therefore, we find that there was no irregularity in recording those two dying declarations."

It further considered the corroborative evidence from PW-3, stating "She has described the incident in detail. She was very much present in the house. She had seen that Pushpa had caught fire. The Appellant was present there. He had pulled PW-3 and her brother out of the house and then had latched the house from outside when Pushpa was inside the house and had caught fire."

The Bench remarked on the appellant’s conduct, stating "This clearly shows that the Appellant had prevented the children from helping Pushpa and saw to it that Pushpa suffered fatal burn injuries."

Considering the forensic evidence, the court noted "Traces of kerosene were found on his clothes. It is not his defence that he was not present in the house at the time of the incident."

The court rejected the defence's plea to reduce the conviction to Section 304 IPC. It examined Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and stated "The important consideration is that, to take recourse to this benefit, the offender should not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner."

The court held "All this conduct is definitely cruel and he had taken undue advantage of the vulnerability of his own wife and children. Therefore, the Appellant cannot claim benefit of taking his case within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC."

Also Read: Treaty Provisions Cannot Override National Law Without Legislation | Bombay High Court Upholds Customs Authority’s Jurisdiction, Dismisses Petitions in Tin Ingots Case

On the admissibility of the dying declarations, the court directed "There was no irregularity in recording the two dying declarations. The endorsements thereon are consistent and cogent."

Reaffirming the validity of the Sessions Court’s decision, the court stated “The prosecution has sufficiently proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant. The Appellant’s conduct and the evidence on record leave no doubt about his guilt."

The Division Bench concluded with a dismissal of the appeal. It held “We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order. The learned Judge has given proper reasons in convicting and sentencing the Appellant. As a result, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed."

Further, the Bench directed "With the disposal of this Appeal, the connected Interim Applications are also disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Ms. Nasreen Ayubi, Advocate

For the Respondent-State: Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP

Case Title: Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs. State of Maharashtra

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:23574-DB

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2016

Bench: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Shyam C. Chandak

[Read/Download order]