Oral Judgment: (P.D. Kode, J.)

The appellant-original accused No.1 in S.C.No.16 of 2005 assails the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, convicting him for murdering wife Manisha on 18th November, 2004 and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Shivram-original accused No.2 and Laxmibai-original accused No.3, i.e. parents of the appellant also tried alongwith the appellant at the trial, were acquitted from the charge of all of them in furtherance of their common intention having committed murder of Manisha.

2. According to the prosecution, the appellant and Manisha since their marriage effected on 27th May, 2003 were residing at the house of the parents of the appellant, viz. acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 in the fields at village Basarge. The appellant then was working as a Pigmi Agent for Noukud Credit Society. About 2-3 months prior to the incident in question, the appellant came to Mumbai for job and was working at Mumbai.

2.1. The original accused No.2 Shivram, father-in-law of Manisha in June, 2003 has taken a loan of Rs.15,000/-from father of Manisha PW6 Sambhaji for erecting Gobar Gas Plant, on assurance of returning the loan in a year. Original accused NO.2 again in month of September, for a period of 15 days, taken Rs.20,000/- from PW6 for returning loan of Credit Society by promising that it would be returned after his son in Military arrives on leave. However, said amounts were not returned to PW6 inspite of repeated demand made by PW6 either by phone or by personally for return of said amount.

2.2. The appellant and other co-accused after repeated insistence of PW6 for return of the money used to tell Manisha that why said amount should be returned to her father and on the contrary she should bring more amount from her father. Manisha used to insist for returning money as her father was in need. The quarrels were ensuing in between Manisha and all the accused. Manisha apprised such happenings to her uncle PW5 Shivaji and others. About 3-4 days prior to the occurring of incident, PW6 while taking back his younger daughter PW4 Prathiba to her matrimonial house at Mumbai, had been to the house of Manisha at Basarge. PW6 then asked in-laws of Manisha and the appellant to anyhow return the amount within four days.

2.3. According to the prosecution, at about 2.30 p.m. on the day of incident another uncle of Manisha PW9 Suresh had been to the house of PW5 for apprising that a phone call was received from village Basarge that Manisha has become unconscious after sustaining fall from the cot. PW9 further told that he had asked for taking Manisha to dispensary at Gadhinglaj. PW9 thereafter went to Gadhinglaj at about 16.00 hours. PW5 received call from PW9 that Manisha brought at Gadhinglaj but found dead, taken back to Basarge by her family. PW5 alongwith PW6, sister-in-law and other relatives went to Basarage and found that the corpse of Manisha was kept in sitting position with support of wall and a cloth was wrapped around her neck and head. PW10 Bhiva Jadhav, brother-in-law of PW6 due to suspicion raised removed said cloth and found blackened ligature mark around her neck. The said ligature mark led PW5 to the belief that Manisha was murdered by strangulating with rope. PW6 then also apprised that at 8.30 hours a phone call was received from Manisha that her mother-in-law was quarrelling on the count of money and PW6 should pay visit but then PW6 told that as he was having urgent work at Kolhapur along with her mother, he would be coming on next day.

2.4. PW12 PHC Wadar attached at Halkarni Outpost recorded complaint Exh.59 regarding murder of Manisha lodged by PW5 narrating such matters. PW12 alongwith occurrence report Exh.60 forwarded said complaint to Gadhinglaj Police Station. PW11 PHC Shewale on the basis of occurrence