Point of Law : It is also true, that if motive is proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17th March, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.773 of 2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.3,000,/- with default clause of three months simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution story goes as under;

3. Deceased Sakina was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage was solemnized on 3rd May, 2008. It was an arranged marriage. In the marriage, deceased Sakina was given gold necklace, gold chain, gold ear rings, gold bangles, gold nose ring etc by her parents/brothers.

4. After the marriage, deceased Sakina came to co-habit with the appellant in a building known as "Mehta Building". It was a rented premises arranged by the brother of deceased Sakina for his sister and the appellant. However, after about a month of their marriage, the appellant started harassing deceased Sakina on the pretext that he was unable to afford rent of Rs.3000/- per month. He used to pick up quarrels on petty domestic issues. He was also insisting upon deceased Sakina that they should buy one house, obviously suggesting that his in-laws should help him. The appellant had even sold most of her gold ornaments. Deceased Sakina, therefore, kept her remaining gold articles with her parents as she had an apprehension that the appellant might sold remaining articles also.

5. Due to the demand of the appellant, brother of deceased Sakina bought one house at Ghatkopar for her and the appellant. However, it was bought jointly in the name of deceased Sakina and her brother Mohammad Sufikar. Even though, there was no change in the behaviour and attitude of the appellant, who continued harassing deceased Sakina by insisting that house should be transferred in his name.

6. On the fateful day of 1st September, 2010, deceased Sakina was found dead in the house. Froth was emanating from her mouth. The appellant was present in the house. Deceased Sakina was taken to the Hospital. She was declared brought dead. P.W.1-Mohammad Iqbal Zagaria Mulla-brother of deceased Sakina had lodged a report against the appellant on 2nd September, 2010. A crime bearing No.414 of 2010 came to be registered against the appellant under section 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C").

7. P.W.6-Dinkar Krishna Chandankar-Assistant Police Inspector held investigation into the crime. He visited the scene of occurrence. He drew a spot panchanama (Exhibit 22). He prepared sketch of the spot of the incident (Exhibit 22-A). An inquest was drawn. Dead body of deceased Sakina was sent for postmortem. Statements of the witnesses came to be recorded. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant-accused came to be arrested vide panchanama (Exhibit 24).

8. Further investigation was held by P.W.7-Mamta D'Souza-Police Inspector attached to Ghatkopar Police Station. She had recorded statements of some of the witnesses. She issued a letter to the Medical Officer of Rajawadi Hospital for ascertaining the exact time of death of deceased Sakina. After receiving time of death, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of 49th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court Vikhroli, Mumbai.

9. Since offence was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court.

10. A charge was framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge below (Exhibit 6) under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. His defence was of total denial and false implication in this case.

11. During his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when he was asked by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whether he wants to