ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 598 of 2005 with Criminal Revision Application No. 346 of 2005, dated 26.07.2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant ordered by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 164 of 2002 dated 16.08.2005.

2. The Trial Court and the High Court have concluded that the appellant (A- 1 before the Trial Court) is the author and executor of the dastardly crime of killing his own wife, Smt. Mahajabin and his child, aged 1½ = years, by strangulation and smothering. It is these orders which are questioned by the appellant (A-1) before this Court in this appeal.

3. The appellant had reported the incident of death of his wife and the child to the investigating agency without raising suspicion towards anyone. Based on the report of the appellant the investigating agency had carried out the investigation and thereafter had filed a charge-sheet against the three accused for the offence under Sections 302, 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("Indian Penal Code" for short) for causing the death of Smt. Mahajabin, wife of A-1 ("deceased" for short) and the daughter-in-law of A-2 and A-3 and also that of child of 1½ = years - Aftab.

4. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitted him of the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. The Prosecution has examined nine witnesses. We have carefully perused the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 which were discussed and relied upon by the Courts below. P.W.-1 is a co-worker in the office of Panchayat Samiti, where the appellant was employed as a clerk. In his evidence, he has stated that the appellant was deputed to work in the Panchayat Samiti office as a typist. He further states that on the date of the incident, viz. 20.09.2011, appellant went to his house at 2.00 p.m. for lunch and within a short span of about 3 to 5 minutes, the appellant returned to the office, and he was then informed by the appellant, about the death of his wife and child.

7. P.W.-3, Dr. Subhash Khillare had conducted the post-mortem of the child. The post-mortem of the deceased (wife) was conducted by P.W.-2, Dr. Donglikar and P.W.-3 together. In respect of the query made by the investigating officer about the time of death, P.W.-2 had informed that the time of death could possibly be six to twelve hours from the time of conducting the Mahajar, which, according to him was performed at 5.30 p.m. The post-mortem report of the deceased (Exhibit-34) suggests that the cause of death is by strangulation and smothering; that rigor mortis had fully developed in the entire body; and that semi-digested food was found in the stomach. P.W.-3, who had conducted the post-mortem of the child, had observed in his report that rigor mortis had already set in and semi-digested milk was present in the stomach of the child.

8. P.W.-5 is the father of the deceased. Though in his evidence he had alleged cruelty and harassment by the appellant against the deceased for dowry and had also alleged accusations of infidelity made by the appellant against her, the same have not been believed by both the Courts below.

9. We have the evidence of P.W.-4, Smt. Pallavi, who was the friend of the deceased. She stays in Bori, the deceased's maiden home. In her evidence she states about her friend (deceased), informing her about the cruelty inflicted by the appellant and his parents (A-2 and A-3). We need not have to dilate on her evidence much. In our opinion, nothing turns much on her evidence.