The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, based on the intention and circumstances of the accused's actions.

JUDGMENT :

SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.

1. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- I.d. to suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. Hence, this Appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :

On 30/12/2011 police Naik Avinash Badade(P.W.9) received telephonic call from his friend Mr. Amarjeetsing Aluwaliya(P.W.3), who informed him that a person residing in his neighbourhood had killed his wife and that the police should visit the spot immediately. Mr. Badade informed about the same to police inspector Sushama Chavan P.W. 13 and thereafter, Ms. Chavan along with Mr. Badade and other police staff visited the spot of incident i.e. bungalow No. 15 east street camp. The police had taken the accused i.e. present appellant in custody. The police had noticed that the accused had sustained bleeding injuries. The accused had disclosed his name as Shivpujan Yadav. The police had then taken the deceased, wife of the accused to Sassoon General Hospital. That the police had given the said information to the brother of the deceased i.e. Jagveer Daddi Yadav (PW.1). On the same day, Jagveer Yadav lodged FIR at Lashkar Police Station alleging therein that his sister was killed by the accused on the ground that the money which she had lent to her parents and brothers was not returned back. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 192 of 2011 was registered at Lashkar Police Station against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of P.W. 1 the brother of the deceased, P.W. 2 the minor son of the deceased, P.W. 3 Amarjeetsing Alluwaliya, P.W. 6 Dr. Amol Shinde, who had performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Tersee, P.W. 7 Dr. Mahesh Tengle who had examined the accused, P.W. 9 Avinash Badade who was the first person to receive the information, P.W. 10 Kaushalya Yadav, mother of the deceased and P.W. 13 Sushama Chavan.

4. P.W. 1 Jagveer Yadav has deposed before the Court that his sister Tersee was assaulted by the accused on trivial grounds. He was a hot tempered person. That accused had given Rs. 30,000/- to the deceased to seek an employment as a teacher in Madhya Pradesh. She failed to secure a job and therefore, she deposited the said amount in fixed deposit. The accused was demanding return of Rs. 30,000/-. The deceased has expressed her inability to return the same on the ground that she had kept the said money in fixed deposit. That his sister had offered to make a payment of Rs. 23,000 which was denied by the accused. And hence, there was quarrel between the couple. On 30/12/2011 the accused had allegedly killed his sister. When he reached the house of the accused and the deceased, he realised that his sister had been strangulated with a rope. His nephew Sanjeev i.e. son of the deceased, upon enquiry, informed P.W.1 that there was a quarrel between his mother and father and that his father had killed his mother. He has proved the FIR. In the cross-examination, he has denied that he had any financial transaction with the accused. When he was confronted with the FIR, he stated that in fact, he has deposed before the Court in consonance with the FIR and that he cannot assign any reason for the omissions of the said contention in the FIR, as the said facts which he has deposed before the court do not find place in the first information report. The said omissions are proved by P.W.13 Sushma Chavan. She has categorically deposed before the court that the said facts were never disclosed by P.W. 1 to the police at the time of recording his first statement. In fact, the recitals of his statement under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is at Exh. 14, in