The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and creditworthy evidence, even in the presence of contradictions, to uphold the conviction under section 302 of IPC for the murder of the accused's wife.

MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7th October, 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 166 of 2003. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. For the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d R.I. for three months and for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d R.T. for 1 month.

2. The incident has taken place on 3rd July, 2003 in the house of the accused at Nehru Nagar, Nashik Road, Nashik. The accused was residing with his deceased wife Anita along with his parents at Nashik Road. The accused was having a son from Anita and he was two years old at the time of incident. The accused along with Anita and his son went to his in-laws house for some religious function. Anita stayed in her maiden home for nearly one month. After her return, the behaviour of accused was changed. He was very suspicious about her character and prohibited her from talking to any other persons. He started picking up quarrels on small issues and used to harass Anita. He used to ask her the name of the boy with whom he had seen her talking at her maiden home. Anita did not tell him a single word about that boy. Thereafter, he became more and more suspicious. His parents tried to convince him about Anita's character. However, his behaviour did not change.

3. On the night intervening 2nd and 3rd July, 2013 when the accused, Anita and their son were sleeping in the bedroom, at around 3 to 4 a.m., the accused inflicted injuries on the neck of Anita with a razor. She screamed for help calling her mother-in-law as ‘Aatya’, who was sleeping in the adjacent room. She succumbed to the injuries immediately. The father Balkrishna (PW8) and mother Pramila (PW9) of the accused immediately came near the bedroom of Anita, which was locked from inside. Despite their banging on the door and request to open the door, the accused did not open the door immediately. After sometime, he came outside from the other door opening to the kitchen and told his parents that Anita had inflicted injuries with razor on her person. On hearing this, the parents were shocked and angry. When they entered the room, they found Anita lying in the bed in a pool of blood. There were cut marks on the neck and the blood was oozing from the injuries. Immediately, the father (PW-8) called his neighbour who was having auto rickshaw and went to the police station and gave complaint. The police registered the offence in C.R. No. 214/2003 at Nashik Road Police Station. The police arrived at the spot and they found that the body of Anita was lying on the floor in the bedroom. They sent the body for post-mortem in the hospital. Dr. Govind Murlidhar Kulkarni, P.W-5 conducted the postmortem on the said body and prepared the report. It was opined that the death of Anita was due to cut throat injury with hemorrhagic shock. The police drew inquest and spot panchnamas. Thereafter API Anil Arjun Katkade, PW-12 arrested the accused on the same day of 3rd July, 2003 at around 12.30 p.m. at Nashik S.T. Stand.

4. Pursuant to the information given by the accused, a razor which was used in the commission of the offence was recovered from the house of the accused and police drew recovery panchnama. The police sent the blood stained clothes of the deceased, razor and also the clothes of the accused to the chemical analyzer. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, they filed charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nashik Road. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge under sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial was concluded in