The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on reliable eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused to provide a credible defense.

JUDGMENT :

1. The accused-appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati¹[Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”], in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 2006, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, with the allegation that he committed the murder of his own wife Smt. Ranjana.

2. The trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 14th August, 2007, convicted the accused-appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2007 preferred by the accused-appellant against his conviction stands rejected by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench²[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”], vide judgment dated 1st April, 2011. The said judgment is assailed in this appeal by special leave.

3. We have heard and considered the submission advanced at bar and have gone through the evidence available on record.

4. The fact regarding the death of Smt. Ranjana being homicidal, was not disputed by learned counsel representing the accused-appellant. Otherwise also, the evidence of the Medical Jurist (PW-4), who conducted the autopsy upon the body of the deceased Smt. Ranjana, establishes beyond all manner of doubt that the death of Smt. Ranjana was homicidal in nature having been caused by blunt weapon injuries inflicted on her vital body part, i.e., head.

5. On a perusal of the impugned judgments and the evidence available on record, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of accused-appellant’s own daughter Ms. D (PW-3) who was indisputably present in the house at the time of incident. The child witness (PW-3)³[Hereinafter, “child witness”], aged 9 years, gave convincing evidence stating that her father (accused-appellant) used to pull a cycle rickshaw and her mother (Smt. Ranjana) used to perform the household duties and also worked as a maid servant. Her father often beat her mother after consuming liquor. On the date of the incident, she was sleeping besides her mother. She was roused from sleep upon hearing some commotion and noticed that her mother was coughing. Her father was sitting nearby her mother who had been covered up by a chaddar (bedsheet). When the child witness enquired from her father, he told that her mother was not feeling well and that he would bring a Doctor. He forbade her from removing the chaddar and taking a look at her mother. Thereafter, the accused-appellant went away from the house not to return. The child witness removed the chaddar and noticed that bleeding injuries on the head of her mother who was immobile. Upon noticing these bleeding injuries, she panicked and called their landlord i.e., Shri Arun Bhagwantrao Khandetod (PW-1) and his wife, who came to their house.

6. In cross-examination, the child witness stated that her father was sick and did not do any work and used to be at the house. Her brother Nitin used to help her mother by selling ice-candy and sometimes he used to come home late. For this reason, her mother and father used to quarrel with each other. A pertinent answer was given by the child witness in cross examination that she along with her father and mother were sleeping in the house after taking meals. She agreed to a suggestion that her father went out of the house in search of her brother Nitin. However, she denied the theory of false implication set up by the defence and stood firm on the aspect that the accused-appella