Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2006 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros, thereby convicting Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, with no separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC.

2. Facts, as are necessary, for deciding this Appeal may be stated thus:-

The marriage of Manisha, named Parvati after the marriage, was performed with the Appellant on 25th May, 2005. After the marriage, they co-habitated at Village Yerla and thereafter on 9th March, 2006, both of them went to Pune in search of the job. However, on 17th March, 2006, the Appellant's brother informed Manisha's parents that both the Appellant and Manisha were missing and not traceable. Hence, after taking their search, her father PW-7 Vishwanath lodged a missing complaint (Exhibit-29) on 18th March, 2006.

3. The enquiry of the said Missing Case No. 3 of 2006 was handed over to PW-15 ASI Dayasingh Thakur. In the course of enquiry, the Appellant was found and thereafter, at his instance, the dead body of Manisha was recovered from the forest in Insuli Ghat Section. The said dead body was identified by her brother PW-5 Prakash and after the Inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-19), it was referred for postmortem examination to Primary Health Center at Banda. However, the body was decomposed to such an extent that the postmortem could not be performed and a certificate to that effect came to be issued by PW-10 Dr. Jyoti Kamble, the Medical Officer attached to Primary Health Center at Banda, vide Exhibit-41, expressing her inability to state the probable cause of death.

4. During the course of further investigation, the statements of Manisha's brother PW-5 Prakash and her father PW-7 Vishwanath came to be recorded. It was also transpired that, both, the Appellant and the deceased were last seen together by PW-11 Bhau Salunke, PW-12 Mahendra Pande and PW-13 Mahesh Vazarkar, about 15 days prior to the incident. Hence, their statements also came to be recorded. It was further revealed in interrogation with the Appellant that he has sold the gold Mangalsutra and the ear-rings of the deceased to PW-16 Naimuddin Shaikh, the Manager of the shop by name "Raju Jewellers" at Osmanabad Main Road. Hence, at the instance of the Appellant, those gold ornaments also came to be seized under Panchanama and the statement of PW-16 Naimuddin Shaikh came to be recorded. The C.A. Reports of the clothes and other articles of the deceased were collected and after completion of due investigation, the Charge-Sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawantwadi. In due course, the case was committed to the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court framed charge against the Appellant vide Exhibit-6, both, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, raising the defence of simple and total denial.

6. In support of its case, Prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses and relying on their evidence, the Trial Court held the guilt of the Appellant to be proved for both the offences and convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

7. This Judgment of the Trial Court is being challenged in this Appeal by the learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Umesh Mankapure, by submitting that the entire Judgment of the Trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises, without there being any iota of concrete and positive evidence on record against the Appellant. According to him, the case is based on circumstantial evidence alone, however, not a single circumstance is proved by the Prosecution by adducing satisfactory evidence. Moreover, the circumstances which are proved, do not form a chain so complete as to leave no other hypothesis except that of the guilt of