The main legal point established is the requirement to fully establish circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the need for corroborating medical reports with other evidence, and the significance of proving motive beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. SONAK, J.

Heard Mr. A. K. Bhangde, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. M.J. Khan learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-1-2018 made by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.471/2014, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant is also convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

3. The prosecution version is that on the night intervening 15-7-2014 and 16-7-2014, the appellant strangulated his wife Rajni and made it appear that she has committed suicide by hanging herself. The prosecution has alleged that the appellant began harassing Rajni after a daughter with a hole in the heart was born to them. The prosecution has also alleged that the appellant was having an illicit affair with the neighbouring lady. All these factors were alleged to be the motive for strangulating Rajni.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge and the appellant pleaded his innocence. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The appellant was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintained that this was a case of suicide by Rajni. The appellant did not examine himself or the defense witnesses. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the principles applicable for evaluation of circumstantial evidence have been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge in this case. He submitted that there were several infirmities in the medical evidence and based on such evidence, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in concluding that this was a case of homicidal death as opposed to suicidal. He referred to Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-Fourth Edition-2011, to submit that the evidence militated against the theory of strangulation, but supported the defense version that Rajni had committed suicide by hanging herself. He relies on Balaji Gunthu Dhule vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 11 SCC 685, to submit that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the conviction only based on postmortem report will not be proper.

6. Mr. Bhangde submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the aspect of so-called motive is completely contradictory and deserves no credence. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to convict the appellant. He relies on the State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh and others, (1975) 4 SCC 472, Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 717 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626, in support of his contentions.

7. Mr. Bhangde submitted that, in this case, there were suicide notes found by the investigating agency. The investigating officer has admitted that the suicide notes were in the handwriting of Rajni. Even the handwriting experts have opined to this effect. He submitted that this crucial aspect has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge based on some hypothetical theory neither put forth by the prosecution nor established by the prosecution evidence.

8. Mr. Bhangde submitted that for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

9. Mr. M. J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State, defended the impugned judgment and order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that there is overwhelming evidence that the appellant and Rajni w