Ravindra Tukaram Hiwale vs State Of Maharashtra

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant was married with the deceased Alka

after the death of his first wife. As per the prosecution

story at about 7.00 a.m. on 6th February, 1990 the deceased

suffered serious burn injuries in the kitchen of the house

and ultimately died of those injuries. It is the

prosecution case that at about 8.30 a.m. on the 9th February 1990 she made a dying declaration to PW.10 - a Police Head

Constable, in which she stated that she had a quarrel with

her husband over the house-hold chores and over the feeding

of the children and she had thereafter poured kerosene on

herself and then burnt herself.

The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence

convicted the appellant for offences punishable under

Section 498-A and to a sentence of one year and under

Section 306 to a sentence of four years. The appellant

thereafter filed an appeal in the High Court of

-2-

Bombay whereas the State of Maharashtra also filed an appeal pleading for a higher sentence. The appeal filed

by the appellant was dismissed. The appeal filed by the

State was allowed and the sentence awarded by the Trial

Court under Section 306 IPC was enhanced from four to six

years. It is in this situation that the matter is before

us.

The learned counsel for the appellant has made only

one argument before us. He has submitted that the High

Court had observed that the appellant appeared to be of a

quarrelsome and aggressive nature and as evidence of his

behaviour had placed reliance on two letters which required

that a heavy sentence should be imposed. We see, however,

that in the light of the dying declaration made by the

deceased that she had quarreled with her husband that

very morning (which is a common place happening amongst

young married couples), the High Court was not justified in holding that the appellant was liable to an enhancement in

the sentence on account of his quarrelsome nature. We must

also emphasize that the interference of the appellate court

on the quantum of sentence should be rare and only in

exceptional cases. Section 306 of the IPC provides for a

sentence which may extend to 10 years. It was therefore the

prerogative of the Trial Court to award a sentence up to

10 years. As already mentioned above the trial court had

-3-

given a positive finding that there was no misbehaviour on the part of the appellant over a period of time and the

incident was a spontaneous one arising out of a family

quarrel in the morning. The finding of the High Court based

on two letters written about a year before the incident

would therefore have little value in the light of the dying

declaration of the deceased. We also notice that the

incident happened in February, 1990 and we are told by the

learned amicus curiae that the appellant has undergone

about four years of the sentence.

We accordingly allow the appeal, quash the sentence

awarded by the High Court and confirm the judgment of the

Trial Court. In the meantime, we also direct that the

appellant who is in custody, shall be released forthwith

if not required in connection with any other case. .................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.................J. (C.K. PRASAD) New Delhi, August 2, 2010.