The main legal point established in the judgment is that a confession made before the Police Patil is inadmissible in evidence, and circumstantial evidence must be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

BARDE, J. :- In Sessions Case No. 133/1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, has convicted the accused of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant has filed the appeal against this order of conviction and sentence.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, counsel (appointed) for the accused - appellant, and Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.

3. The prosecution case is that on 5-4-1993, Purbhaji (PW 1), Police Patio of village Nimgaon, received information that Nilabai, wife of the present accused Ramsingh s/o. Laxman Rathod, was murdered. He, therefore, visited the house of the accused and saw the dead body of Nilabai. There were stab injuries on her person. He made enquiries with the accused and the accused told him that he was suspecting character of his wife and, therefore, at about 12.30 midnight, he committed murder of his wife. The Police Patil then went to Police Station, Mantha, and lodged the report. Crime No. 18/93 was registered. The Police took up the investigation.

4. The police visited the house of the accused. Inquest panchanama on the dead body of Nilabai was prepared. The panchanama of that house was also prepared. The accused was not present at his house. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer learnt that the accused and his parents were illtreating Nilabai because the demands of radio, gold finger ring and wrist watch were not fulfilled by the mother of Nilabai. During the course of investigation, the Police also recovered one knife from the house of the accused, at the instance of the accused. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the three accused,that means, the present appellant and his parents, for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, against all accused, and under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, as against the present accused.

5. As the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Hadgaon, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nanded.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, framed charge against the present appellant and his parents, for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C., and against the present accused -appellant, for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.

7. After recording evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused and hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the three accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C., on the ground that no F.I.R. was lodged by the wife or her near relatives or by a person duly authorised in that behalf, as contemplated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So, the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. being non-cognizable, in such circumstances, the accused could not be tried for that ofence and he acquitted the accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

8. However, so far as offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned above, holding that there was the extra judicial confession made by the accused and there were other circumstances to link the accused with the crime.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in relying upon the so called extra judicial confession. The prosecution has examined the Police Patil Purbhaji (PW 1) and one Ramrao Rathod (PW 2). However, Ramrao Rathod (PW 2) has not supported the prosecution case with resp