JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The appellant was tried for murder of his wife under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution had examined nine witnesses in support of the charge. Prosecution case mainly rests upon evidence regarding accused and deceased having been last seen together, recovery of bindi and safety pin at the instance of accused from near the scene of offence, recovery of two magazines "DAFA 302" from the house of the accused which contains stories of murders of beloveds and the abscondance of the accused after the commission of crime.

2. The trial Judge accepted last-seen evidence and also took into consideration the evidence relating to recovery of bindi which, according to the Chemical Analyst, was similar to the pack of bindis recovered from the house of accused out of which one bindi was missing, recovery of the said magazines, the fact that accused did not lodge any missing report and absconded after the commission of crime. The appellant was, therefore, found guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as fine of Rs. 300/-, in default S.I. for six months. This conviction is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant has urged before us that except for the circumstances relating to last seen together, no other circumstance has been proved and that on the sole evidence relating to last seen together, the appellant cannot be held guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on three judgments of the Apex Court in (Lakhanpal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh)1, 1979 Cri.L.J. 1217; (State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kamla)2, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 967 and (Mahavir Prasad v. State of Rajasthan)3, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 272. Learned Advocate for the appellant urged before us that the prosecution had not examined material witnesses Rukhmabai and Shyam with whose help, the accused made efforts to trace his missing wife. He submitted that the defence be given opportunity to examine the said witnesses.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, has urged that evidence on record upon which reliance has been placed by the trial Court, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant and that there is no reason or justification to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

5. The prosecution has firstly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 5 Dashrath Thakre who has stated that on 26-12-1993 at about 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., he was coming towards Hinganghat by Nandgaon Road and near Nandgaon Naka he saw accused Jahangir going towards Nandgaon side with one girl on bicycle who was of 20/22 years of age. He identified the said girl on the basis of photograph which had been recovered by the police from P.W. 6. Sanjay Gulani to whom the said photograph was given by the accused 2/3 months prior to the incident. The said photograph was of the accused and the deceased. Except for putting bare suggestions in cross-examination, there was no cross-examination on the last-seen evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 5 Sanjay proves that the accused and the deceased who were husband and wife, were last seen together on 26-12-1993 at about 5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Subsequently, the dead body of the deceased was found on 31-12-1993 near Wana river. According to the prosecution case, the accused absconded and was not traceable with effect from 27-12-1993 and ultimately, he was arrested on 7-1-1994 from his native place at Calcutta.

6. The prosecution has examined P.W. 2 Gajanan Pal who has stated that he used to supply milk everyday in the morning at the house of accused and that he had given milk at the house of accused on 26-12-1993, but on 27-12-93 and 28-12-93 when he, as usual, visited the house of accused for giving milk, the door was locked. This witness was not cross-examined at all. However, the accused in a statement under section 313 Cri.P.C. denied that his house

Click Here to Read the rest of this document