(per the Hon’ble Mrs.Justice

T. Meena Kumari)

The present appeal is preferred by the appellant accused aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Sesions Case No.307 of 2003 on 14.09.2004 for the offence punishable under 302 IPC.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

3. One Nafees Begum (for short, the deceased) is no other than the wife of the accused. Their marriage took place about 20 years back and they were residing at Noorishah colony, Bandlaguda along with her children.

4. While so, on 6.6.2001 the elder son of the deceased came to the are house of P.W.1, who is no other than the brother of the deceased and informed about the death of the deceased due to heart attack. Then, P.W.1 rushed there and found the deceased lying dead on the floor. On observation, he found nail marks and scar marks over the neck of the deceased. Having suspected the accused, P.W.1 lodged a complaint and the same was registered as a case in crime No.130 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., initially and investigated into.

5. During the course of investigation, inquest as well as post mortem examination was held over the dead body of the deceased and the statements of younger brother of the deceased and others were recorded. On the basis of post mortem report that the death of the deceased was due to throttling, the section of law was altered to that of 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

6. On filing the charge sheet before the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, he committed the same to the Metropolitan Sessions Division. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge registered the same as a Sessions Case and made over to the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad for trial.

7. The Charge leveled against the appellant-accused reads as follows:

“On or about 6th day of June, 2001 at about 2.00 am., at the house bearing door No.18-13-132/15, Noorishah colony, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of his wife viz., Nafees Begum and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”

8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P16. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was subjected to examination under 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The plea of the accused is of total denial. One Naheeda Begum, who is no other than the daughter of the accused and the deceased, was examined as D.W.1 on behalf of the appellant-accused.

9. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found the appellant-accused guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Having aggrieved by the same, the appellant-accused preferred the present appeal.

10. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

11. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that there is no direct evidence on record and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of which is not contiguous and that P.W.2, on which basis, the conviction is recorded, is not an eye witness and his evidence is very inconsistent and that the Court below has not evaluated the evidence of D.W.1 in a proper perspective and that non-examination of L.W.21, who collected nail clippings is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is also further contended that in the absence of any other evidence as to the commission of the offence, the medical opinion cannot be a basis for conviction and that there was no motive for the accused to commit the offence in