JUDGMENT :

1. The sole accused is the appellant before us. The challenge is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2001 dated 4.4.2005 by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life as well as rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the deceased Taiyrabi is the wife of the appellant herein. Their marriage was solemnized 15 to 16 years prior to the incident. According to the prosecution, the appellant was suspecting the character of his wife and was constantly ill-treating her and was also assaulting her. On the fateful day, i.e., 20-10-1999 when the appellant and deceased were in their house at about 4.45 a.m., the appellant is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the chest of the deceased. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries which was witnessed by Hanimabi PW 3 who is none other than the mother of the deceased. PW 3 Hanimabi is stated to have been residing separately in the same house who rushed to the spot of the incident on hearing the cries of her daughter and had seen the appellant delivering blows on his wife and also saw that he had withdrawn the knife after the last assault. On seeing that gruesome incident, Hanimabi PW 3 is stated to have ran outside the house to seek the help of Sheikh Jabbar PW 7, son of her sister and thereafter the incident was stated to have been reported to PW 1 Police Patil Sudhakar, pursuant to which FIR (Exh. 37) came to be recorded between 9.00-9.30 a.m.

3. Ramdas Uikey PW 6 was the investigation officer who visited the spot of incident and drew spot panchanama in presence of pancy witness Suryabhan PW 2 and seized one bed-sheet, pair or slipper, mat, pillow cover, simple earth, earth mixed with blood, gunny bag, etc. from the spot of incident. PW 6 also arrested the accused who was standing on the road and was threatening the witnesses having a knife in his hand and his clothes were stained with blood. Pursuant to the arrest of the appellant his blood stained clothes consisting the baniyan and full pant was also seized. After holding the inquest over the dead body which was lying in front of the door of the house of the appellant under the presence of the panch witnesses, Ramdas Uikey PW 6 stated to have sent the dead body for autopsy. PW 4 Dr. Ashok Barapatre held the post-morterm on 21.10.1999 between 8.00 A.M. to 11.00 A.M. and issued the post morterm report(Exh. 21). PW 4 Dr. Ashok Barapatre noted as many as four incised wounds which were ante- mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. He also opined that the probable cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the vital organs like liver, heart and lung. The knife which was recovered from the appellant was marked as article no. 7. After recording the statement of the witnesses, the charge sheet was filed and the appellant was charged for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 498A.

4. One other factor to be noted is that when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, apart from denying the offence alleged against him, the appellant came forward to examine himself and offered himself for cross-examination. Thereafter, we find that PW 7 Sheikh Jabbar was re-examined after the conclusion of the examination of the defence witness. The trial Court ultimately concluded that the appellant was guilty of the offences alleged against him and imposed the sentence as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. On appeal preferred by the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

5. We heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned