The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence and the need for circumstances to be conclusive and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

A. S. GADKARI, J.

Appellant has impugned Judgment and Order dated 30th January 2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District Nashik in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2013, convicting Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short the “IPC”) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

2. Heard Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for Appellant and Mr. Dedhia, learned APP for Respondent-State. Perused entire record.

3. It is the prosecution case that, deceased Kedabai @ Lalita was the second wife of Appellant. Appellant had earlier married with Ujwalabai and had divorced her. Appellant subsequently married with deceased Kedabai @ Lalita. There were frequent quarrels between Appellant and deceased Kedabai @ Lalita on the ground that, Appellant was intending to bring back his earlier wife Ujwalabai for cohabitation. It is the precise motive alleged behind commission of the present crime.

That, in the intervening night of 15th October 2012 and 16th October 2012 between 12.30 a.m. to 12.45 a.m., Appellant committed murder of Kedabai @ Lalita by assaulting her on her head with a wooden log and by strangulating her.

At about 10.00 am of 16th October 2012 Baban U. Sonawane (P.W.4) heard cries of children of deceased Kedabai @ Lalita from the room which was rented to Appellant and deceased. He therefore looked inside the house and saw that, Kedabai @ Lalita was lying dead on the floor of the house on the mattress. There was bleeding injury to her head. The household articles were in scattered condition in the house. He accordingly informed the said fact to police. The close relatives of the deceased Kedabai @ Lalita namely Anil N. Nikam (P.W.1), cousin brother ; Smt. Shobha T. Khairnar (P.W.5), sister and Thakubai Daga Nikam (P.W.11) mother of deceased Kedabai @ Lalita were informed. They reached at the spot of incident within 45 minutes. Anil N. Nikam (P.W.1) lodged crime with Vadner-Khakurdi Police Station, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik on the same day. Inquest panchanama (Exh-17) was conducted by investigating officer Shri. Haribhau P. Kolhe (P.W.12) in presence of panch witness Arun B. Vichare (P.W.2) and the spot/scene of offence panchanama (Exh-19) was drawn in presence of panch witness Ashok R. Khairnar (P.W.3). The photographs of scene of offence were taken by photographer Dinesh A. Shinde (P.W.8).

4. The dead body of Kedabai @ Lalita was sent for conducting post morterm examination. Dr. Faisal Suleman Sohel Ahmed (P.W.9) on 16th October 2022 was on duty as a Medical Officer in General Hospital Malegaon, District Nashik. He performed autopsy on the dead body of Kedabai @ Lalita at about 12.45 p.m. on the same day. He noticed following external injuries :-

(i) Evidence of avulsion over scalp measuring 10x5x2 c.m. with fracture underlying the bones.

(ii) Neck was crushed with fracture underlying hyoid bone.

After conducting post morterm, he opined the probable cause of death of Kedabai @ Lalita was due to traumatic asphyxia as a result of throatling with head injury. He accordingly prepared post morterm report (Exh-41) and also issued advance Death Certificate (Exh-43). After receipt of necessary reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Shri. Haribhau Kolhe (P.W.12), investigating officer, submitted charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon.

5. As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malegaon committed the present case to the Court of Sessions as contemplated under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “CrPC”) on 1st February 2013. Trial Court framed charge below Exh-4 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the IPC. The said charge was read over and explained to Appellant in vernacular language, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The defence of Appellant was of total