The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on direct evidence, the establishment of motive, and the rejection of the alibi plea in upholding the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

JUDGEMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Present appellant/accused stood convicted in Sessions Case No. 16/2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule on 16.02.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and since the accused has taken plea of alibi, he has examined one person as the defence witness. PW3 - Rohini, who is the daughter-in-law of the accused and deceased, is eye-witness to the incident and PW4 - Vilas is the son of the deceased and accused who lodged the FIR, however, he had not seen the incident but relied upon the story that was told to him by his wife. No doubt, taking into consideration the testimony of PW1- Dr. Kapileshwar Maganlal Chaudhary– Medial Officer, who had conducted autopsy and had found in all 12 external injuries on the person of deceased and two internal injuries, it can be said that the opinion given by him regarding cause of death as “head injury - due to multiple injuries over head” would amount to homicidal death. However, while appreciating the evidence of PW2-Tarabai, the panch to the inquest panchanama, it can be seen that the inquest panchanama has been carried out at Civil Hospital and not at the spot. It is not the case of the prosecution that after the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital she was declared dead. The police had come to the spot and taking into consideration the photographs and the cross-examination of the other witnesses, it can be seen that the deceased had expired on the spot. Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the inquest panchanama should be carried out at the spot. PW5 - Walmik is the panch to the seizure panchanama of murder weapon i.e. sickle, which has been referred to as ^dks;rk* . He has turned hostile and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said weapon was seized from the spot though the eye-witness is saying that it was at the spot. PW6 - Rajendra is the panch to the seizure of two chits which were allegedly produced by accused, however, it can be seen that the specimen signature and the handwriting of the accused along with the chits though referred for the handwriting expert’s opinion, that opinion was never produced till the end of the trial. The said panchanama is also doubtful. It is said that the said panchanama has been carried out between 20:40 to 21:40 hrs on 15.10.2013. The incident has taken place around 01:30 to 02:00 pm on 15.10.2013. Therefore, it is hard to believe that accused would have fled away along with the chits and then he would have produced it. It appears that the reason behind the said seizure of the chits was to show the motive. PW7 – Yuvraj is the neighbour, however, he turned hostile. PW8 - Bharat is the photographer who had taken the photographs of the dead body at the spot, but he says that he had taken those photographs at about 01:30 pm on 15.10.2013; when the incident itself had taken place at 01:30 pm to 02:00 pm at village Awdhan and the photographer is resident of Mohadi. Therefore, it is hard to believe that he would have taken those photographs at the time he is disclosing. PW9 – Jitendra and PW10 – Eknath are the panch witnesses, however, they both have turned hostile. PW11 – Hemant Patil is the Investigating Officer.

3. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of PW3 – Rohini is absolutely not reliable. She has deposed that in the past the accused was convicted by Sessions Court, Nashik, when it was alleged that the appellant had assaulted deceased – wife with knife. In her cross-examination, PW3 - Rohini has stated that she was not knowing about that incident personal