Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

The appellant herein stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) i.d. to suffer R.I. for three years; He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year in Sessions Case No.1 of 2004 by 3nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon by Judgment and Order dated 1/12/2005. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts which are necessary for decision of the appeal are as follows :

(i) The accused was married to Vansabai. Couple was working on daily wages in village Mhalde in the land of one Pardeshi. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19/9/2003 at about midnight a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife. The cause of quarrel was that Vansabai had given Rs.10/- to her husband and asked him to bring liquor. He did not obliged her, instead Rs.10 was spent elsewhere. When he returned home his wife was annoyed. Hence, he assaulted her with a piece of wood on her head, forehead and caused her homicidal death. Thereafter, the accused loaded the dead body in his bullock cart. He also carried his small baby aged about 5 months alongwith mother. He kept the small baby in dry well. In the morning the owner of the land, Ujwalsingh Pardeshi came to collect milk. He noticed bloodstains. Upon enquiry he learnt that there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife and the accused had killed his wife. Ujwalsingh Paredeshi then went to Azadnagar Police station and lodged the report and on the basis of the said report Crime No.118 of 2003 was registered at Azadnagar Police Station. Post mortem was performed on the dead body of Vansabai. The cause of death was "cardio respiratory failure due to head injury. The accused was arrested on 20/9/2003.

(ii) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 20/12/2003. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.1 of 2004.

(iii) The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused.

3. P.W. 1 Vimalbai More is the sister of deceased Vansabai. She has deposed before the Court that Vansabai had begotten one son and one daughter from her first marriage. Both the children were staying with P.W. 1. Vansabai was married to the accused three years prior to the incident. Vansabai had begotten one son and one daughter from the said wedlock. The son is 2 years old and the daughter was 5 months old. According to her, both the sisters visited their maternal house at about same time, so that they could stay together. Vansabai had disclosed to P.W. 1 that she was ill-treated by her husband. Vansabai had also expressed an apprehension that some day he may kill her. However, P.W. 1 thought that the quarrel was a usual affair between the husband and wife and therefore, she did not intervene. According to P.W. 1, the employer of the accused visited her and informed her that accused had killed her sister at midnight.

Since it was the festival of Nagpanchami, mother of P.W. 1 was also with her. Raju Pardeshi i.e. owner of agricultural land had further informed that the accused had thrown his daughter aged 5 months in a dry well. P.W. 1 and her mother visited the spot on the next day in the morning. She has further stated that the accused was also prosecuted for killing his first wife. However, she was not aware of the Judgment of the said prosecution. It is elicited in the cross-examination that prior to her marriage with the accused Vansabai was first marked with Harshan Naik. Thereafter, she was married to Damu Naik. She was divorced by Damu. Thereafter, she was married to the accused i.e. the present appellant. P.W. 1 has given an evasive answer to the suggestion that Vansabai was in the habit of consum