Bombay High Court upholds murder conviction of man who set wife on fire

The Bombay High Court recently upheld murder conviction and life sentence of a man who, in February 2014, poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire in a locked room [Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta v State of Maharashtra].In a judgment delivered on June 12, a Division Bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak rejected the man's claim that there was no pre-meditation and thus his act only amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).The Court observed that for that benefit to apply, he should not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner.“In the present case, 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," it said..Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta, a tailor from Solapur, was convicted in December 2014 for the murder of his wife, Pushpa, following a history of domestic abuse, financial neglect and repeated threats. On the night of February 10, 2014, after waking her from sleep to quarrel, Aaretta poured kerosene on Pushpa and set her ablaze. Their daughter and son tried to douse the flames with water but was stopped by the convict, who then removed both children from the house and locked the door from outside, leaving Pushpa to burn. .The children and their landlord later broke in and tried to save her. Pushpa was hospitalized but died the next day from 94% burn injuries. Before her death, she gave two dying declarations, one to a magistrate and another to a police constable, clearly naming her husband as the perpetrator. She also made an oral declaration to her brother. Chemical analysis confirmed the presence of kerosene on her body, the scene, and the clothes of accused..On appeal, Aaretta's lawyer argued that the case lacked premeditation and arose out of a sudden quarrel. The counsel also questioned the reliability of the dying declarations, given the severity of Pushpa’s injuries. However, the State argued that the evidence, particularly the consistent dying declarations and the daughter's eyewitness account, firmly established both the intent and the cruelty of the act. The prosecution further contended that the act of locking the house from outside to prevent any rescue effort demonstrated a level of deliberation and malice that disqualified the case from any exception..The Court agreed with the State, describing the accused’s actions as “definitely cruel” and calculated to ensure that Pushpa had no chance of survival.It noted that the dying declarations were properly recorded, medically endorsed and corroborated by witness testimony and forensic evidence.Finding no error in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. “The learned Judge has given proper reasons in convicting and sentencing the Appellant. As a result, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed,” it said..Advocate Nasreen Ayubi appeared for the husband Ambadas Chandrakant Aaretta.Additional Public Prosecutor Sharmila Kaushik appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]