MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has refused to commute the conviction of Ambadas Aaretta from murder to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that he had acted in a cruel manner by setting his wife ablaze and preventing others from helping her.
“In the present case, after setting Pushpa (the convict’s wife) on fire, the appellant (Aaretta) took the children out of the house and latched the door from outside while Pushpa was still burning inside. He prevented anybody else from helping Pushpa,” said the division bench of justices Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak. “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.”
Aaretta had moved the court to challenge his conviction by the Solapur sessions court on December 3, 2014 for the murder of his wife and the rigorous life imprisonment sentence handed to him.
According to the prosecution, Aaretta was a tailor but he did not have a stable source of income and was addicted to alcohol and gambling. He would often pick up fights with his wife Pushpa, who worked in a bidi making outlet and looked after the home and their three children.
On the night of February 10, 2014, following a quarrel with Pushpa, Aaretta assaulted her, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. When she started shouting for help, he took the children out of the house and latched the door from outside. He even prevented their daughter from helping Pushpa.
The door was opened after Pushpa’s brother reached the spot and took her to the civil hospital. She survived for a few days before succumbing to the burn injuries. In her dying declaration, she testified that Aaretta had set her ablaze. The Solapur sessions court, while convicting Aaretta, relied on Pushpa’s dying declaration, the testimony of the children and medical records.
The division bench of the high court said Aaretta could not claim benefit under exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
“The important consideration is that, to take recourse to this benefit, the offender should not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner,” the bench said, dismissing his appeal.