JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.) :

1. This is statutory appeal by original accused by invoking Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga in Sessions Case No. 25 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The prosecution case in trial court is as under :

Deceased Manisha was married to appellant-accused two years prior to the incident. Initially, deceased Manisha and accused resided in Hadapsar, but later on shifted to village Hipparga (Rava) i.e. native of accused. Since six months prior to the incident dated 16.01.2013, accused started suspecting fidelity of deceased Manisha. He suspected that she had affair with his own brother and on such count, he used to harass her and beat her. On 16.01.2013 at around 5.30 p.m., accused strangulated Manisha to death in their own house. After autopsy, medical opinion was received that death was due to ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’ and therefore, PW2 father of Manisha set law in motion alleging murder of his daughter Manisha by accused son-in-law. On the strength of his complaint, police registered crime bearing No.03/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC.

Investigation was entrusted to PW9, who took all necessary steps of arresting accused, getting spot panchanama and inquest panchanama drawn, causing seizure of saree, seeking medical opinion, gathering postmortem report, sending seizure for analysis and including its report in the charge-sheet and finally filed the same in the court of law.

Learned J.M.F.C., after completing initial procedure and on finding case to be exclusively triable by court of sessions, committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga conducted trial, during which he permitted prosecution as well as defence to participate in adducing evidence. Evidence adduced by them was appreciated and after hearing both parties, learned trial judge by his judgment and order dated 29.12.2014, held accused appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

It is the above judgment and order of conviction which is now taken exception to by the original accused by filing instant appeal before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. From his arguments, he seems to be questioning conviction, its legality and correctness by advancing a case that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. He emphasized that this being so, it was expected of prosecution to cogently prove and establish all circumstances relied by it and it was expected of prosecution to complete the chain of circumstances pressed into service. But the same has not been done here by prosecution.

4. He further submitted that accused appellant had performed love marriage with deceased and therefore, there is no question of suspecting her fidelity or committing any act of strangulation. Learned counsel would submit that in fact appellant was not in the house. Rather when he reached home, that day, he saw his wife lying in the house. That, under shock he too fell unconscious and he regained consciousness on being shifted to the hospital by the relatives. He further added that either someone intruded in the house in his absence or there is also a possibility of deceased committing suicide as she was upset as her mother was beaten by her father in a quarrel between them. No investigation has been carried out whatsoever with such background and rather merely for being husband, he is implicated in false case.

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, investigation