The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused in cases of circumstantial evidence.

V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

1. The appellant – State of Maharashtra has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 31st July, 1995, passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.67 of 1987. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-original accused under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.').

2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:-

Deceased – Nirmala Ramchandra Lokhande was the wife of the respondent. The respondent, his wife-Nirmala and their son-Sudhir were residing at Mangalwar Peth, Satara. Sudhir was about 6 years old at the time of the incident. The respondent was addicted to liquor and used to assault his wife - Nirmala daily. The incident had occurred on the night between 27th February and 28th February, 1987. The respondent, his wife and their son were in the house. At about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., neighbours heard shouts of the respondent – accused. The respondent stated 'what have you done'. The neighbours came to the room of the respondent. They saw that the door of the room of the respondent was shut. The door was locked from inside. The respondent opened the door of the house after 2 to 3 minutes. The neighbours noticed that the body of the wife of the respondent was lying in the room. The body was burnt. The clothes were also burnt. The body was motionless. The neighbours asked the respondent to lodge FIR. Thereafter, the respondent lodged FIR. The body was sent for postmortem. PW.6-PSI, Madhukar Nanasaheb Kava the collected advance medical certificate. This disclosed that it was a case of murder. Hence, on behalf of the State, he lodged FIR (Exhibit-38). Thereafter, investigation commenced. On the very same day i.e. 28th February, 1987, the respondent came to be arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. Charge came to be framed against the respondent under Sections 302, 201 and 498A of the I.P.C. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. His further defence is that his wife committed suicide and he has been falsely implicated in this case. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent – accused of all the charges, hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard learned A.P.P for the Appellant - State and Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, for the respondent - accused. We have carefully considered their submissions, Judgment and Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the same, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has taken an extremely perverse view and acquitted the respondent – accused.

5. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in the present case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. One of the main circumstance against the respondent – accused is that the respondent, his wife – Nirmala and their son were in the house on the night between 27th February and 28th February, 1987. Their son was just six years old at the time of the incident. In the morning, the respondent was heard shouting. Then the neighbours arrived on the spot. They saw that the door of the house of the respondent was locked from inside. The respondent then opened the door after few minutes and came out. At that time, the wife of the respondent was seen lying in the house with extensive burn injuries. PW.3 – Begam Noormahamad Shaikh and PW.4 – Dilip Baburao Shedage have deposed to the above effect. PW.3 – Begam had stated that she knew the respondent. Behind her room was the room of one Mahiboob and the room of the respondent was adjoining to the room of Mahiboob. Begam had stated that on the day of the incident at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. she heard the shouts of th