The burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence, especially in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside the house, is comparatively lighter on the prosecution. The absence of a satisfactory explanation from the accused can be a strong circumstance indicating their responsibility for the crime.

[Per: Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, j.]

1. The appellant, who stands convicted by Additional Session Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.705 of 2004, vide judge dated 11.09.2008, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, by this appeal, challenges his conviction and sentence.

2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows :-

Deceased Aruna was the wife of the appellant. She had a daughter by name Swarupa and a son by name Pawankar (P.W.5) Alongwith them, she was residing in room No.216 in PCL Colony, Chembur. The appellant was working as Welder and Fitter and in relation to his job he used to go abroad. P.W.1 Madhavi is a social worker and residing in the same locality where the appellant and deceased were residing.

3. On 10.4.2004, the appellant had returned from abroad and he met P.W.1 Madhavi on 12.4.2004 in the shop of Laxmi Tailor at about 7 to 8.00 p.m. There he told P.W. 1 Madhavi that he had sent amount of Rs.80,000/- to his wife Aruna, but she was not giving account of the said amount. He further told her that Aruna has also not explained as to what she has done of 35 tolas gold ornaments. Aruna has also pledged the photo-pass of the room with P.W.3 Sanjeevani Kawade and took loan of Rs.10,000/- from her. She has also borrowed an amount of Rs.5,000/- each from Parvati Pol and Shakuntala. The appellant further told her that he was going to take Aruna to the house of her parents to convince her.

4. In this backdrop, incident giving rise to this case, took place on 19.4.2004. On that day at about 5.30 a.m. P.W.2 Asha Gaikwad-the neighbour of Aruna, noticed that some persons were talking outside the house of Aruna. Hence she came out and went to the house of Aruna. There she found Aruna lying dead on carpet and the appellant was present there. She, therefore, called P.W.1 Madhavi on phone, who came there and gave information of the same to the police. On enquiry by her with the appellant, he admitted his mistake of committing murder of Aruna by strangulating her with nylon rope.

5. On receipt of information from P.W.1 Madhavi, P.W.10 PSI Jadhav, attached to R.C.F. police station, came to the spot at about 7.30 a.m. and found dead body of Aruna lying there. The appellant was also present on the spot itself. He recorded complaint of P.W.1 Madhavi vide exh.10. He obtained crime number on phone from police station. It was C.R.No.80 of 2004. Then he prepared inquest panchanama and spot panchanama vide Exh.12, sent the dead body for postmortem and arrested the appellant on the same day. After inquest panchanama, he has taken in custody the clothes of deceased and also seized the clothes of appellant under panchnama. From the spot he seized, blanket and nylon rope. All these seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer vide requisition letter Exh.33. The Chemical Analyzer's reports are produced in the case vide Exh.34 to 38. The postmortem report Exh.24 disclosed cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. Further investigation of the case was taken over by P.W.11 Police Inspector Deshmukh. He has recorded the statements of witnesses and further to completion of investigation, filed chargesheet in the Court against the appellant.

6. On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, trial Court framed charge against appellant vide Exh.3. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses and on appreciation of their evidence, trial court was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant as aforesaid.

8. This judgment of the trial Court is the subject matter of this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for appellant and learned APP. In our considered opinion, before adverting to rival submissions advanced by them, it would be useful to refer to the evidence on record.

9. This case st