The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the principles of last seen theory and the need for conclusive proof.

JUDGMENT

R. Borkar, J. - This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the additional Sessions Judge-3, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant, who was accused before the trial court, has been convicted for the ofence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to sufer Imprisonment for Life and to pay fne of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fne to sufer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The appellant has been further convicted for the ofence punishable under section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to sufer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fne of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fne, to sufer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. The trial court has however, acquitted the appellant of the ofence punishable under section 498-a of the IPC.

2] The deceased Nanima was the wife of accused. On the day of incident which took place on 12.09.2011, the accused and the deceased were married for 10 years and blessed with three daughters.

3] according to the prosecution, the accused was addicted to liquor and he used to ill-treat the deceased under the influence of liquor. The accused was not doing any work and therefore, on that count there used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused.

4] according to the prosecution, on the day of incident, at about 10.00 a.m., the accused and the deceased with their daughters came to the house of PW-1 ashok Jagtap and PW-3 Mudrika Jagtap, the parents of the deceased. They told PW-3 to look after their daughters and left their house to collect the frewood from the agricultural land of one Belambe. according to the prosecution, at that time, the accused was carrying axe with him. They did not return back till 7.30 p.m.

5] The search of the deceased and the accused was taken. During search, the deceased was found lying in dead condition in the feld of Kashinath Ramchandra Belambe. There were injuries on her neck and other parts of body. The accused was not found. The report was therefore, lodged by PW-1 with akkalkot North Police Station alleging murder of the deceased by the accused.

6] On the basis of said report, crime vide Crime No. 125 of 2011 was registered against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was fled against the accused for the ofences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 498-a of the IPC.

7] The accused was charged and tried for the above stated ofences. The trial court, as stated earlier, by the impugned judgement and order convicted the accused for the ofences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and acquitted him of the ofence punishable under section 498-a of the IPC.

8] We have heard the learned appointed counsel for the appellant/accused and learned aPP for the respondent / State.

9] The learned appointed counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to prove chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the trial court convicted the accused only on the basis of suspicion, conjunctures and surmises. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order thus needs to be set aside and the appellant/accused needs to be acquitted.

10] On the other hand, the learned aPP for the respondent/State supported the judgment of the trial court. It is submitted that the trial court on the basis of evidence on record was justifed in convicting the accused for the ofences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It is submitted that the appeal, thus, needs to be dismissed.

11] admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. according to the prosecution, the accused was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor he used to ill-treat the decea