REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.         OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos. 197-198/2008)

RAVINDRA TUKARAM HIWALE ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

Leave granted.

The  appellant  was  married  with  the  deceased  Alka  

after the death of his first wife. As per the prosecution  

story at about 7.00 a.m. on 6th February, 1990 the deceased  

suffered serious burn injuries in the kitchen of the house  

and  ultimately  died  of  those  injuries.   It  is  the  

prosecution case that at about 8.30 a.m. on the 9th February

1990 she made a dying declaration to PW.10 – a Police Head  

Constable,  in which she stated that she had a quarrel with  

her husband over the house-hold chores and over the feeding  

of the children and she had thereafter poured kerosene on  

herself and then burnt herself.

The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence  

convicted  the  appellant  for  offences  punishable  under  

Section  498-A  and  to  a  sentence  of  one  year  and  under  

Section  306  to  a  sentence  of  four  years.  The  appellant  

thereafter  filed   an   appeal   in   the   High  Court of  

-2-

Bombay  whereas  the  State  of  Maharashtra  also  filed  an

appeal pleading  for a higher sentence.  The appeal filed  

by the appellant was dismissed. The appeal filed by the  

State was allowed and the sentence awarded by the Trial  

Court under Section 306 IPC was enhanced from four to six  

years.  It is in this situation that the matter is before  

us.

The learned counsel for the appellant has made only  

one argument before us.  He has submitted that the  High  

Court had observed that the appellant appeared to be of a  

quarrelsome and aggressive nature and as evidence of his  

behaviour had placed reliance on two letters which required  

that a heavy sentence should be imposed. We see, however,  

that in the light of the dying declaration made by the  

deceased  that   she  had  quarreled  with  her  husband  that  

very morning  (which is a common place happening amongst  

young married couples), the High Court was not justified in

holding that the appellant was liable to an enhancement in  

the sentence on account of his quarrelsome nature.  We must  

also emphasize that the interference of the appellate court  

on  the  quantum  of  sentence  should  be  rare  and  only  in  

exceptional cases. Section 306 of the IPC provides for a  

sentence which may extend to 10 years. It was therefore the  

prerogative of the Trial Court to  award a sentence up to  

10 years.  As already mentioned above the trial court had

-3-

given a positive finding that there was no misbehaviour on

the part of the appellant over a period of time and the  

incident was a spontaneous one arising out of a  family  

quarrel in the morning. The finding of the High Court based  

on two letters written about a year before the incident  

would therefore have little value in the light of the dying  

declaration  of  the  deceased.  We  also  notice  that  the  

incident happened in February, 1990 and we are told by the  

learned  amicus  curiae  that  the  appellant  has  undergone  

about four years of the sentence.  

We accordingly allow the appeal, quash the sentence  

awarded by the High Court and confirm the judgment of the  

Trial Court. In  the meantime, we also direct that the  

appellant  who is in custody, shall be released forthwith  

if not required in connection with any other case.

                     .................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.................J.                                      (C.K. PRASAD) New Delhi,

    August 2, 2010.