IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.:-The accused-appellant had entered into wedlock with Nagamani, the deceased, on 30.4.1998 and for some time, they lived in marital bliss at Hindupur. After four months, the needs of life compelled the couple to shift to Srikalahasti where the father of the deceased was working. The experience of life not being satisfactory hardly after eight months, at the insistence of the wife, they shifted back to Hindupur. The shifting to Hindupur did not bring satisfaction as expected and hence, eventually, they shifted to Madanapalle town where the accused was working prior to the marriage. As the prosecution story further unfurls, at the time of occurrence, i.e., on 17.10.2000, the accused was staying in the rented portion of the house belonging to Dhanalakshmi, PW-1. The other portion was occupied by one Imamvalli, father of S. Syed Basha, PW-5. Imamvalli was staying with his children and his wife was away at Quwait and the proximity of stay, as alleged by the prosecution, gradually developed to an illicit intimacy between him and the deceased. Twelve days prior to the incident, the deceased was found in the company of Imamvalli in an auto- rickshaw by the accused, who dragged him out from the auto-rickshaw and assaulted him. The accused took the deceased to the house and warned her. The differences between the couple grew to bitterness which resulted in severe quarrels during nights. On 16.10.2000, there was a quarrel and, as the prosecution version proceeds, the accused had expressed his agony and anger before Pavankumar, PW-7, that if the deceased did not discontinue her illicit relationship, he might be compelled to send her back to her matrimonial home or get rid of her.

2. As the version of the prosecution has been further depicted, on 17.10.2000, about 6.30 a.m., the deceased was found dead in the house and the doors were locked from outside. PW-1, the landlady, lodged an FIR and a crime was registered. During the course of investigation, the lock of the room was opened by PW-13, the Investigating Officer, in the presence of one Babu Naidu, PW-12, and another. The further investigation led to seizure of incriminating material from the scene of the offence. Thereafter, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and it was sent for post mortem. The investigating agency examined number of witnesses and after completing the investigation, placed the charge-sheet for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) against the accused-husband before the competent court which, in turn, committed the matter for trial to the Court of Session.

3. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence as alleged against the accused, examined as many as 15 witnesses, got 29 documents exhibited and 15 material objects marked. PWs-1 to 5 and 7 turned hostile and they were cross-examined by the prosecution. PW-1 was the landlady who had lodged the FIR, Ext.-1, and PWs-2 to 5 and 7 were the neighbours and all of them resiled from their original version. The learned trial Judge took note of the fact that there was no direct evidence to prove the involvement of the accused in the crime, but taking note of the series of facts, namely, that the death was homicidal and not suicidal; that the deceased was in the house of the husband and her dead body was found in the house; that the house was locked from outside and the husband had absconded; that there was no complaint by the husband with regard to the death of his wife; that the cross-examination of the hostile witnesses would indicate that the deceased and the accused were staying together and the incident occurred as per the FIR, Ex. P-1; that the testimony of PWs-8 to 10 clearly established that the accused was suspecting the character of the deceased and had picked up quarrels alleging illicit intimacy with another person; that the sugge