Trial Judge Went Overboard: Bombay High Court Alters Murder Convict's Sentence From 'Remainder Of Life' To 'Life Imprisonment'

The Bombay High Court recently modified the sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife from “life imprisonment for the entire remaining of his life” to “imprisonment for life” citing the importance of adhering to the wording adopted in section 302 of the IPC.

A division bench of Justice VV Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase sitting at Aurangabad observed that the trial judge went overboard in sentencing the convict to life imprisonment for the entire remaining of his life.

“It is rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Trial Judge has gone overboard by imposing sentence of suffering life imprisonment till natural death. Very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247 has held that “Sessions Court is not empowered to extend tenure of imprisonment beyond what is provided in the Statute”. Punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC has not been amended or enhanced. Wordings used in the Statute are required to be adopted”, the court stated.

The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Section 302 reads –

“302. Punishment for murder. —Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The appellant Bapu Bajarang Patil was married to the deceased Ratnabai. According to the prosecution, the appellant, an alcohol addiction, frequently suspected his wife’s fidelity. On the night between May 16, 2015, and May 17, 2015, the appellant allegedly returned home in an inebriated state, poured kerosene over Ratnabai and set her ablaze, resulting in 87 percent burn injury. Two dying declarations were recorded during her treatment, forming key evidence in the trial. The case was initially registered under Section 307 of the IPC, which was later converted to Section 302 following Ratnabai's demise.

The prosecution presented the evidence of eight witnesses, including individuals involved in the registration of the case, medical professionals, and investigating officers. The appellant was convicted. Thus, he filed the present appeal.

Advocate Harshita Manglani for the appellant raised doubts about the credibility of the dying declarations and pointed out inconsistencies with the testimony of the daughter of the deceased. She questioned the delay in recording the dying declarations and the capacity of the deceased to provide a reliable statement. She further contended that the appellant had been falsely implicated. She also contested the sentencing, asserting that the trial judge had overstepped in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment until the natural life of the appellant.

Advocate SD Ghayal for the prosecution emphasized the consistency and reliability of the dying declarations, along with the testimony of the daughter, who was a child witness. He argued that the evidence presented was appropriately considered by the trial judge, and the conclusions reached were sound.

Upon re-examination of the evidence, the court concluded that both dying declarations were voluntary, truthful, and consistent on material counts. The court also examined the testimony of the child witness, and found that she gave a different version of the events. The court noted that the police did not record her statement prior to May 20, 2015 and opined that there is possibility that she has not deposed on her own.

The court concluded that the dying declarations were reliable and sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt even if the daughter’s testimony is discarded.

“In both the dying declarations, role of appellant has categorically come on record. Therefore, even if we discard evidence of child witness, still there are dying declarations, which are not only consistent but are also shown to be voluntary, truthful and inspiring confidence. Therefore, there is no hurdle in accepting the dying declarations for recording the guilt of appellant”, the court held.

However, the court did modify the sentence imposed by the trial judge, emphasizing that the judiciary could not extend the duration of imprisonment beyond what was prescribed in the statute.

“the sentence imposed on appellant Bapu Bajrang Patil “to suffer life imprisonment for the entire remaining of his life” is hereby modified and now appellant is sentenced to suffer “imprisonment for life” for the said offence.”

The court partially allowed the appeal, maintaining the appellant's conviction but modifying the sentence to "imprisonment for life." The rest of the order passed by the trial court was upheld.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2017

Case Title – Bapu Bajarang Patil v. State of Maharashtra