The burden of proof on the accused in cases of crimes committed in privacy is comparatively lighter, and the accused has a duty to offer a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.

JUDGMENT :

V.M. Deshpande, J.-

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia. The impugned judgment is delivered by the learned Sessions Judge on 21-3-2017 in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2012.

The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. For such conviction, imprisonment for life is awarded together with payment of fine of ` 1,000/- with default clause.

2. The case of the prosecution, as it is unfolded during the course of the trial, is in short compass which is detailed herein as under :—

A] On 7-5-2011, Vishwas Ramchandra Patil (PW12) was attached to Amgaon Police Station, District Gondia as Police Sub-Inspector. One Gomaji Chandulal Yele (PW1) visited the police station and reported about the suspicious death of his niece Ranjita.

B] Gomaji Yele (PW1) lodged his oral report (Exh.21). In the report, he disclosed that his younger brother Potan has passed away 7-8 years ago. Potan was having three daughters. Youngest amongst them was Bhumabai @ Ranjita, whose marriage was performed before about eight years with Rajkumar Bhurelal Choudhari (appellant).

His further narration in the report is that on 7-5-2011, in early hours at 4.30 a.m., his nephew Mukund Mulchand Yele (PW4) came to his house and informed that Bhumabai resident of Katurli is dead, is the information which he received from Rajkumar Choudhari (appellant) on his cell phone. The report further states that on getting this information the first informant along with his wife reached to village Katurli at about 7.30 a.m. to notice that Bhumabai @ Ranjita was lying in dead condition and he noticed some injury marks on her cheek. It is, therefore, stated in the report that the appellant has committed murder of Ranjita. The printed first information report is at Exh.22.

C] PSI Patil (PW12), after receipt of the aforesaid information, immediately visited the spot. He found that the dead body was kept in the first room of the house of the appellant and there were marks of injuries on cheeks, lips and neck. He also found that blood was oozing from her right ear. He also noticed that there were injury marks on elbow joints. The relatives of the deceased, the appellant and police staff were also present on the spot.

PSI Patil immediately drawn inquest panchanama (Exh.53). He sent the dead body for post mortem, by giving duty certificate (Exh.43) to the Police Constable. He arrested the accused under arrest panchanama (Exh.54). He also recorded the spot panchanama in presence of the panchas (Exh.38). He found on the spot of the incident, which is the rear portion of the house, broken bangles and one button of a shirt. Those were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.39). During the investigation, blood samples of the accused were also drawn and those were seized under seizure memo (Exh.29). After completion of other usual investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.

3. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, in whose Court the charge-sheet was filed, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and therefore, he committed the case to the Court of sessions.

4. In the Sessions Court, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2012. The learned Sessions Judge, Gondia framed the Charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Exh.14). The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. They were cross-examined by the learned defence counsel. The appellant did not examine any defence witness. From the line of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence of the appellant was that due to epilepsy attack, neck of the deceased was entangled in the rope of the cot (ckt) resulting into her death. In his statement under Section 313 of the Co