Bombay High Court Refuses Relief To Man Who Burnt Wife And Barred Rescue, Affirms Murder Conviction
Court noted that the husband, after throwing kerosene on wife and setting her on fire, took the children out of the house and latched the door from outside to prevent anybody else to help her;
In a harrowing case of domestic violence turned fatal, the Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta, who was found guilty of murdering his wife by setting her ablaze in front of their children.
Court dismissed his appeal, reaffirming the trial court’s judgment that sentenced him to life imprisonment for the heinous act.
The incident occurred on the night of February 10, 2014, in Solapur, Maharashtra. Ambadas, a tailor by profession, poured kerosene on his wife Pushpa, while she was asleep and set her on fire. The brutal act was witnessed by the couple’s daughter, Shirisha, who was then studying in Class 9. She testified that her father not only prevented her from saving her mother but also locked the door from outside and fled the scene.
Pushpa, despite suffering 94% burns, survived long enough to give two dying declarations—one to a Special Executive Magistrate and another to a police constable—both of which implicated her husband. In both statements, she described how Ambadas attacked her after a quarrel and acted with clear malice, pouring kerosene and lighting the fire while she lay defenseless.
The bench comprising Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Shyam C. Chandak, noted that the testimonies of the daughter and other key witnesses, including Pushpa’s brother and the landlord, corroborated the prosecution’s case. Court emphasized that the consistency in Pushpa’s dying declarations, coupled with the medical evidence and eyewitness account, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Rejecting the defense's argument that the act was not premeditated and could at best qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC, the court held that the manner in which the crime was committed was both “cruel and unusual.”
"After setting Pushpa on fire, the Appellant took the children out of the house and had latched the door from outside when Pushpa was still burning inside. He prevented anybody else to help Pushpa. He had thrown kerosene on her and had set her on fire. 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," court observed.
Court also pointed out that the Appellant had a history of neglect and abuse. He was addicted to gambling, contributed nothing to the household, and routinely harassed Pushpa for money. Despite efforts by family members to intervene, his behavior remained unchanged, leading to the fatal outburst of violence.
Case Title: Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta vs State of Maharshtra
Download judgment here