CriAppeal-150-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2026 Indubai w/o Ramesh Danve, Age – 43 years, Occupation – Household, R/o. Javkheda Khurd, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Hasnabad, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. 2. Yamunabai w/o Raju Danve, Age – 39 years, Occupation Service, R/o. Javkheda Khurd, Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna. ..… Ms. Ashwini Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellant (appointed) Mr. A. D. Wange, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Nitin S. Ingle, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ….. CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on : 19.06.2026 Pronounced on : 22.06.2026 JUDGMENT : 1. In this appeal there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 27.06.2023 passed by learned District Judge-6 Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 199/2021 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for five (05) years and to pay fine. 2026:BHC-AUG:24207 CriAppeal-150-2026 -2- 2. Before trial court, prosecution was launched on the premise that on, 09.06.2021 present appellant called informant PW1 to her house for tea and there, she threw hot oil on her person causing injuries to her upper limbs, right side of face and anterior chest wall, i.e. burns to the extent of 40 to 45%. While being treated, her statement was recorded by police, on the basis of which crime was registered, it was investigated and on gathering evidence, accused was duly chargesheeted for commission of offence under Sections 307, 326, 342 of IPC. Accused faced trial vide above Sessions Case during which prosecution adduced evidence of in all eight witnesses and on its analysis, trial court held the charges to be proved but to the extent of only Section 326 of IPC and trial court acquitted the appellant from charges under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC. Aggrieved by the above judgment and order of conviction for offence under Section 326 of IPC, appellant has come up in appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was false implication and there was no convincing evidence that accused poured/threw hot oil. It is pointed out that, there was no corroboration to the testimony of informant. That, the so called eye CriAppeal-150-2026 -3- witness had hearsay information. That, even the child witness happens to be son of informant and he was tutored and therefore there was no distinct legally acceptable evidence on behalf of prosecution. He submitted that, trial court rightly acquitted the accused from offence under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC, however, conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 326 IPC was in absence of cogent and reliable evidence. That, grievous hurt was not proved, and therefore she seeks indulgence by allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction. At the end, she also pointed out that, even otherwise appellant has already suffered the sentence awarded vide the impugned judgment and she is already set at liberty. 4. Learned APP for State as well as learned counsel for respondent no.2 would justify the order of conviction pointing out that, there was credible evidence of injured-informant herself, to which there was corroboration from the evidence of immediate neighbour to the house of accused, who had come to her rescue. That, even son of informant had reached the scene of occurrence immediately. That, immediately after the incident, there was disclosure of the act of accused by the informant. That, same day there was FIR and even medical expert confirms grievous injuries and therefore, according to them, no fault CriAppeal-150-2026 -4- can be found in the impugned judgment. For want of merits, they both pray to dismiss the appeal. 5. Heard. Re-appreciated the evidence. In the trial court, prosecution had adduced evidence of as many as eight witnesses. Crucial evidence is that of PW1 informant at Exhibit 30, PW2 immediate neighbour of accused at Exhibit 34, PW4 son of injured- informant at Exhibit 39 and PW8 medical expert at Exhibit 67. 6. PW1 informant, in her evidence has stated that, on 09.06.2021 when she left the house for work around 10.00 a.m., after reaching the house of accused, she was called by accused for a cup of tea and accordingly she accompanied accused inside the house and noticed oil already being boiled in a utensil. On query to that extent by informant, accused told her that she was boiling the oil for cooking purpose. Initially accused served tea to the informant in a saucer and while informant was having it, suddenly accused poured boiling oil on her right side of the body and latched the door from outside. Therefore informant raised hue and cry, upon which Kamlabai Danve (PW2), Radha Danve and others came to her rescue, changed her clothes and took her to Aastha Hospital on account of burns to the head, ear, both hands, face, chest and thigh. CriAppeal-150-2026 -5- 7. PW2 Kamlabai who was residing in the neighbourhood of the house of accused, claims to have heard hue and cry and had come to the house of accused and claims to have seen informant in injured condition and informant disclosing her that accused Indubai had poured hot oil on her person, and therefore she being taken to hospital. 8. There is also evidence of PW4 Ritesh, son of informant, and he also deposed that around 10.50 a.m., while he was sitting in front of the house on platform, accused came and asked his mother to accompany her for tea and therefore he and his mother both went to the house of accused. On reaching there, accused asked son of informant to go out of her house and so he returned to his house. He further deposed that, on hearing shouts of his mother he went to the house of accused and his mother disclosed that Indubai poured boiling oil on her. 9. Though PW2 and PW4 are subjected to cross, their testimonies on the point of occurrence has remained undisturbed. They both claim to have heard about the occurrence immediately from informant when they had rushed there after hearing hue and cry. CriAppeal-150-2026 -6- Therefore, these two witness, who are res gestae witnesses, support informant’s evidence. 10. Next is the evidence of doctor PW8, who has deposed that on 09.06.2021 at around 11.00 a.m., injured had come to the hospital with history of hot oil being thrown on her face and body, and examining and noticing deep burs to right upper limb, left upper limb, right side of the face, over anterior chest wall extending to the back and upper abdomen. According to him, informant had suffered 40 to 45% burns and the age of injury was fresh. Doctor also opined that injuries are possible by hot oily substance and that the injuries were grievous. 11. Therefore, testimony of complainant also finds support from medical expert. CA reports are placed on record which are at Exhibit 64, which show that articles seized carried traces of vegetable oil and therefore, apart from medical evidence, there is support from scientific evidence. 12. Though there was charge under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC, in the light of evidence of doctor, it was not proved that injuries suffered by informant were life threatening. However, doctor had already CriAppeal-150-2026 -7- stated injures to be grievous in nature. Therefore, necessary ingredients for attracting Section 326 of IPC were indeed available before the trial court. 13. Resultantly, in the light of availability of such evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court, trial court committed no error in recording offence under Section 326 of IPC. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the findings and appreciation and hence, there being no merits in the appeal, following order is passed : ORDER I. The appeal is dismissed. II. Fees of the learned counsel appointed to represent the appellant be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, High Court, Aurangabad, as per Rules. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre