JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:---In the early hours of 31-12-1990, the door of the house of Police Patil--Miyasaheb (P.W. 1) was knocked by the present accused--- appellant, who informed the Police Patil that he has committed the murder of his wife Pathrabai. Police Patil went to the house of accused, saw the dead body of Pathrabai and took the accused to the Police Station. First Information Report was lodged by the accused himself and an offence at CRI No. 103/90 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Murud. When the accused--appellant was arrested, blood-stains were found on the pant which was on his person. Panchanama of arrest is at Exhibit 19. First Information Report lodged by accused is at Exhibit 23. Panchanama of the scene of offence is at Exhibit 26 and the inquest panchanama is at Exhibit 27. It is also alleged that a sharp cutting kitchen instrument used for vegetable (foGh) was recovered in furtherance of information given by the accused. Memorandum is at Exhibit 29 and panchanama of recovery is at Exhibit 29-A. P.W.. 5 Dr. Subhash Mashalkar, Medical Officer has deposed that he found as many as 8 injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is cardio-respiratory failure secondary to spinal cord injury with haemorrhagic shock with third rib fracture. Post mortem notes are at Exhibit 31. P.W. 6.---Suglabai, mother of the deceased Pathrabai and Ambadas Gaikwad---P.W. 8 speak about the previous conduct of the accused and allege that the appellant was ill-treating his wife Pathrabai.

2.Samples of the earth where the dead body was lying and the sample of the blood soaked portion of the earth and the white metal vessel and mat lying near the dead body which had also blood stains, were sent to the Chemical Analyser alongwith the alleged weapon of the offence and clothes which were on the person of the deceased and the accused. Chemical Analyser's report is at Exhibit 51. Blouse which was on the person of the deceased Pathrabai was found to have human blood stains. All these blood stains were of Group 'B'. Same blood group was detected on the pant which was on the person of the accused when he was arrested and also on the kitchen instrument which was used for inflicting injuries on the deceased Pathrabai.

3.After recording the evidence, learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad was pleased to convict the accused for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. This judgment and order dated 14-9-1993 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Osmanabad has been challenged in this appeal.

4.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. Para 29 of the judgment of the learned trial Judge mentions the circumstances which weighed his mind for holding the accused guilty. The relevant portion is as under---

"In a nut-shell I propose to put these circumstances, as the conduct of the accused immediately after the commission of the crime. The recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. The blood stains on the pant of the accused having blood group of deceased Pathrabai. Similar blood group found on the sickle, recovered from accused under recovery panchanama. The motive behind the crime, that accused was unhappy due to Pathrabai's illicit relations with Mohamad. Possibility of causing injuries on the person of deceased Pathrabai due to muddemal sickle. All these circumstances, if collectively taken together definitely supports the case of the prosecution about the commission of the crime by the accused and accused only."

It appears that the learned Judge took following circumstances into consideration.

1.Accused being unhappy about alleged illicit relation of Pathrabai with Mohamad.

2.Conduct of accused--ill treatment to wife when she was at her mother's house as deposed by Suglabai (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document