JUDGMENT :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is the Appellant herein. Originally, Accused No.1 to 3 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’] or alternatively for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. As seen from the record, a charge-sheet was filed against Accused No.2 and 3 vide P.R.C. No. 03 of 2002 in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2002. The case against Appellant/Accused No.1 was split as he was absconding for about 15 years. Accused No.1 was arrested and produced before the Court on execution of Non-Bailable Warrant. On 26.07.2015, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, wherein, it came to be numbered as S.C. No. 96 of 2015. Accused No. 1 faced trial as an “under trial prisoner”. It is also to be noted here that, the case against Accused No. 2 and 3 ended in acquittal, as there was no evidence to connect them with the crime, vide Judgment, dated 24.08.2007.

3. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is against this conviction and sentence of imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., the present appeal came to be filed.

4. The substance of the charge against the accused is that, on 23.10.2001, Accused No. 1 is said to have caused the death of his wife, by name, Rajana Bhagyalakshmi [‘Deceased’], with the help of Accused No. 2 and 3, in his house.

5. The facts, in the issue, are as under:

i) PW6 is the father of the deceased. According to him, the marriage between Accused No. 1 and deceased took place about a year prior to the incident. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.10,000/-and a gold ring was presented to Accused No.1. The deceased was also given ¼ tula of gold ear rings and silver anklets. Initially, both of them lived at Tummikapalli Village and later shifted to Vizag, where the accused looked after the deceased well. But, at times, he used to beat her suspecting her fidelity. As such, the deceased was brought to Tummikapalli Village, where, Accused No. 1 was admonished. However, about three days prior to incident, Accused No.1 took the deceased to his house. As per the evidence available on record, Accused No.1 and his parents along with deceased used to live in the said house.

ii) While things stood thus, the Talari of the Village informed PW1, who was working as Village Revenue Officer of Tummikapalli Village, about the deceased lying with injuries, in the house of the accused, under a cot. This was on 23.10.2001 at about 7.00 P.M. Immediately the information about the same was furnished to PW6 also. On receiving the said information, PW1 and also PW6 proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the dead body of the deceased under the cot with injuries. PW1 lodged the report at 9.00 P.M., before PW11 – Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered it as a case in Crime No.77 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P10 is the First Information Report.

iii) PW13 – Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, obtained a copy of Ex.P10 [F.I.R.], and proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the house of the accused. He prepared a panchanama of the scene and also got photographed the scene of offence. Ex.P2 is the scene observation report. At the scene, PW13 seized blood stained clothes, blood stained sticks and damaged tape recorder, which are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4, under Ex.P2 [Scene Observation Report]. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined PW4, PW5 and others and recorded their statements and, thereafter, sent the body for post-mortem examination.

iv)