Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has refused to suspend the sentence of a mother-in-law who was convicted by the trial court for setting ablaze the deceased wife.

The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale, was hearing an application seeking the suspension of the sentence imposed by the trial court pending appeal.

The trial court had convicted the son and his mother under Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 304A (causing death by negligence), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the IPC, against which an appeal was filed.

Earlier, in March 2023, an application by the appellants was filed seeking bail until the final disposal of the appeal. However, the application was withdrawn after the court allowed them to approach the court if the appeal was not decided within a year. Subsequently, another application was filed after the appeal was not decided within that time frame.

Advocate Rahul Arote, representing the applicants, argued that the trial court operated under a presumption of guilt against the applicants and the co-accused from the start, seeking to justify the evidence without independently assessing the circumstances. He further claimed that the FIR was motivated by malice and did not mention any dowry demand.

On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor AS Shalgaonkar opposed the application, asserting that the trial court had not committed any error. He emphasized the seriousness of the offence, highlighting that the accused had brutally taken the life of a young bride within seven months of marriage, and therefore, did not deserve leniency.

After perusing the statements of witnesses and the evidence presented, the bench observed that the applicant and her son had deliberately and ruthlessly restrained the hands and legs of the deceased to control her movements before dousing her with kerosene and setting her on fire.

Consequently, the bench rejected the petition, noting that the applicant had only undergone 9 years of imprisonment.

“Undoubtedly the manner of commission of this act is brutal. The Applicant has suffered only about 9 years of incarceration against her life sentence. The life of a young girl having a promising future has been prematurely snuffed out by the accused. It is thus not desirable to suspend the sentence of Applicant and enlarge her on bail in view of the facts, circumstances, deposition of witnesses adduced as well as the evidence appreciated by the trial Court,” the order reads.

Case title: Malti Ramkrishna Mhatre vs State of Maharashtra & Anr