Point of Law: Murder - Conviction upheld - Medical evidence also shows that deceased had suffered injuries on head as mentioned earlier - Cause of death was “head injury.” Looking at nature of injuries, it is quite clear that it can only be homicidal death.

JUDGMENT :

Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th July 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge – 2, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.121 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer RI for three months.

2. The prosecution case is that on 14th June 2014 before 6.00 am, the appellant committed murder of his wife Aarti in their matrimonial house at Kolhapur by giving a blow with a heavy stone block used for grinding spices because he was suspecting her character.

3. Heard Mr. Satpute, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the Respondent – State. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence as there are no eyewitnesses to the actual incident when the appellant had allegedly given the fatal blow. The prosecution, in its support, examined 20 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was of total denial. He has not examined any witness in his support. Besides 20 witnesses examined in the Court, the prosecution has introduced important documents viz. FIR, Panchanama, Post-mortem notes, etc. through these witnesses.

Prosecution Evidence

4. The prosecution evidence can be categorised and summarised as under :-

[I] Relatives of the deceased Aarti who spoke about the motive and the events on that particular day.

(i) In this regard, the prosecution has examined P.W. 2 – Suman Hattikate. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased. She has stated that her daughter Aarti was married with the appellant 12 to 13 years prior to the date of incident. The deceased was residing with the appellant, his father and sister at Kolhapur. P.W.2’s other daughter Shital was residing at Shastrinagar in Kolhapur. P.W.2 has stated that Aarti was treated properly by the appellant for about 4 years. But thereafter, he started suspecting her character and on that count, started assaulting her. Aarti had disclosed this to P.W.2. This witness had tried to make the appellant see reason and behave properly with Aarti. But the situation did not improve. About 7 to 8 months prior to the incident, the appellant had assaulted Aarti and therefore, this witness had taken Aarti to Satara with her. Aarti stayed there for that entire period. Appellant’s mother came to Satara and convinced them that Aarti would be treated properly and therefore, Aarti came back for cohabitation with the appellant about 15 days before the date of the incident. P.W.2 had come to the house of her other daughter Shital at Kolhapur on 13th June 2014. In the evening, she had gone to the matrimonial house of the appellant and her daughter Aarti. At that time, Aarti complained to her that the appellant was harassing her even more and on the previous day he had tried to throttle her. She informed P.W.2 that she was not willing to stay with the appellant. P.W.2 tried to pacify her and promised to take her back to the parental house on the next date. However, on the next date i.e. on 14th June 2014 in the morning P.W.2 got a message that the appellant had assaulted Aarti with a heavy stone block on her head. P.W.2 immediately rushed to their house and found Aarti lying in a pool of blood. The appellant was not seen anywhere. P.W.2 then went to Rajarampuri Police Station and lodged FIR. The FIR is produced on record at Exhibit 14.

In her cross-examination, P.W.2 clarified that she received the information at about 6.00 am and she reached the appellant’s house at about 6.15 am. She went to the Police Station at about 6.30 am. P.W.2 admitted that she was unable to tell the exact day and date when Aarti had disclosed to her about ill-treatment suffered by her at the hands of the appellant for the first time. According to this witness, the appellant was doing centering work. The appellant and Aarti had two sons.