Point of Law: The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and conduct of any person an offence against whom is subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 30th November, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Alibag in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2015, thereby convicting the appellant-original accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The prosecution case can be summarized as under:

The appellant and Gayatri (deceased) were married about twenty years prior to the incident, and were staying together at Kharghar. On 02.08.2015, there was a quarrel between the two and the appellant had committed the murder of Gayatri, by banging her head against the wall, thereby causing injury to her. The appellant had then phoned his brother-in-law Krishanakumar Tiwari (PW-2) and confessed his guilt. The appellant then phoned for the ambulance and Dr. Kamble (PW-1) had reached the spot of incident. Dr. Kamble had enquired with the accused and, accused had confessed to her that there was a quarrel between him and his wife and he has assaulted his wife by banging her head against the wall. Dr. Kamble had reported the incident to the Kharghar Police Station and lodged the FIR. The police had reached at the spot and arrested the accused. The offence was registered as C.R. No. 112/2015. It was investigated by the Police Inspector M.I. Khade. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer had prepared the inquest panchnama (Exh.11) and the post panchnama (Exh.12). He has seized the clothes of the accused and deceased. He has recorded statements of brother-in-law of the accused and the neighbour Ram Naryayan Gharat. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. After completing the investigation the charge-sheet against the accused was fled in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel, who in turn had committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the said offence is being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The charge (Exh.4) of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was framed and the same was explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused had taken a defence that he has not killed his wife. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the accused has stated that his wife did not bear a child in their twenty years of married life and was therefore depressed and addicted to liquor. His wife had banged her head against the wall and thereby the injury caused to her and consequently she died. The accused has not examined any defence witness.

3. After a full fledged trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant, hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is not responsible for the death of Gayatri (deceased). Gayatri (deceased) herself banged her head on the wall and died. It is submitted that the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there are no clinching and incriminating circumstances to convict the appellant, and therefore benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellant. It is submitted that the alleged extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and no conviction can rests upon such evidence. It is submitted that in the case of Sharad Bhirdichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 the Supreme Court held that, if two views are possible while dealing with the case based upon circumstantial evidence, in that case view which favours the accused deserves to be adopted. Learned counsel for the appellant invites attention of this court to the evidence of witnesses and submits that none of the witness has actually witnesses the incident and it is only on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession the appellant has been convicted. It