A.I.S. Cheema, J.

1. The appellant is the original sole accused, convicted by the judgment and order dated 6.1.2012, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2011. He has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has been directed that he should suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

CASE OF PROSECUTION

2. In short the case of prosecution is that, the appellant (hereinatfter referred to as the accused), was married to the victim Padmabai about 20 years before the incident which took place in the night between 21.2.2011 – 22.2.2011 at Aarli, Taluka and District Adilabad. The couple has a daughter Divyalata, aged about 17 years. There used to be quarrels between the couple and leaving Padmabai (hereinafter referred to as the victim) and the daughter, the accused had gone away. Consequently, the brothers of the victim namely complainant Laxman Narayan Golamwar, P.W.10 Ramanna Golamwar and other brother Santosh brought the victim and Divyalata to Madnapur and the victim with daughter were residing at Madnapur in a small room constructed with tin sheets. However, about one year before the incident accused came to Madnapur and assured the victim and her brothers that he will reside properly and started residing with the victim and Divyalata.

On 21.2.2011, when the victim had gone along with her sister-in-law P.W.9 Kavita, to the field of Santosh to labour on the field, the accused had gone there and quarreled with the victim, asking for money. In the evening, P.W.10 Ramanna had called the couple and made accused understand and thereafter the accused and victim went home which is near the house of the other brother Santosh. After the couple went home, Divyalata went to sleep at the place of her maternal uncle Santosh, as usual. In the morning when Divyalata went back to her house, she found that the same was closed by chain from outside. Inside she found her mother lying on bed with a quilt made from sari on her face. When the quilt was removed, Divyalata found the victim to be dead and she appeared to have been strangulated. Divyalata started crying and shouting, attracting people. The accused was absconding from the spot. The incident occurred in the night some time between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. Complainant Laxman Narayan Golamwar then went from Madnapur to Sindkhed Police Station, which is about 15 Kms. away and at about 11.05 a.m., Crime No. 5 of 2011 came to be registered by P.W.12 A.P.I. Babarao Chavan.

3. P.S.I. P.W.13 Pundlik Khude investigated the offence. He went and did inquest panchanama in the house (which is small room) of the victim, on the same day of 22.2.2011 between 11.45 – 12.45 Hrs. The spot panchanama was done between 12.30 to 13.00 Hrs. and the victim was sent for post mortem to Medical Officer, P.W.4 Dr. Anil Waghmare, who carried out the post mortem on the same day between 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The post mortem report concluded that the death was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia. On the same day of 22.2.2011 clothes of the victim were seized vide another panchanama. The accused had run away to Adilabad and the investigating officer P.W.13 Pundlik brought him and he was arrested. C.A. report was obtained which showed that in the vicera no poison was found.

On completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahur and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. for short) was recorded. His defence is of denial as well as alibi. The accused came to be convicted as mentioned above and hence the present appeal.

ARGUMENTS

4. We have heard learned counse