Mumbai: Pouring kerosene and setting a person ablaze is an imminently dangerous act and any person accused of doing so has no right to say that he had no intention to kill the victim, held the Bombay High Court recently while upholding a man’s conviction. The HC has also upheld the rigorous life imprisonment imposed on the man, convicted for setting his wife ablaze.
A bench of Justices Tanaji Nalawade and Mukund Sewlikar was dealing with a criminal appeal filed by Navin Bansode, a Nanded resident.
Bansode, who according to the prosecution was a liquor addict had allegedly poured kerosene on his wife as he wanted to ‘get rid’ of her. The prosecution claimed that Bansode did not like his wife, who was unhappy with him being an alcoholic.
As per the prosecution story, Bansode poured kerosene on her person, while she was sleeping and set her ablaze. Having set her on fire, he ran out of the house and later on poured water on her to douse the fire.
Taking this as his defence, Bansode argued before the bench led by Justice Nalawade that had no intention to kill his wife because he had poured water on her person, soon after she was engulfed by fire. He further argued that if he really had an intention to kill his wife then he would not have poured water on her.
Having heard the contentions, Justice Nalawade said, “Pouring kerosene and setting a person on fire is an imminently dangerous act. A person who pours kerosene on someone and sets him or her on fire has no right to say that he had no knowledge that this would cause death or would cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
“The act is so inherently dangerous that a man of ordinary intelligence can also contemplate that setting a person on fire would entail death or would cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,” the bench held.
The bench further noted that Bansode poured kerosene on his wife and then set her on fire. “These two acts are so inherently dangerous that a person who does these acts knows that in all probability it would cause death. The accused first poured kerosene on her and then set her on fire. Therefore, this act denotes that he had the intention to set the deceased on fire and kill her,” the bench ruled, while rejecting his appeal.
