The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and cogent evidence to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the need to prove motive, and the high standard of proof in cases of serious offences.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Appellant, a convict for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], is hereby challenging the judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, by which he was held guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced to imprisonment for life.

FACTS GIVING RISE TO SESSION TRIAL

2. Degloor Police Station, District Nanded chargesheeted accused on accusation that deceased Ujwala, who was wife of accused, was initially shifted to Dhanvantari Hospital, Degloor and then to Godavari Hospital, Nanded on 18.08.2011 in the early hours of morning on the complaint of convulsions, giving history as fall from bed/cot. While undergoing treatment, she died. Initially Accidental Death was registered bearing A.D. No. 29/2011. On receipt of medical opinion, more particularly autopsy doctor’s opinion, it was revealed that death was due to smothering and manual strangulation. On receipt of such opinion, the police officer himself registered crime and on the strength of the same, investigation was carried out after arresting the accused. After completion of investigation, he was duly chargesheeted and was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli vide Sessions Case No. 24 of 2014.

3. At trial, prosecution adduced oral evidence i.e. of in all 9 witnesses and sought reliance on documentary evidence like A.D. papers, medical papers, panchanamas, postmortem report etc.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciating the evidence, learned trial Judge reached to a finding that accused is responsible for the death of Ujwala. That, it is homicidal death and accused being in the company of deceased, by invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, he is held responsible for her death and thereby convicted and sentenced as above.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant:

5. The sum and substance of arguments advanced before us by learned counsel for the appellant is that, the impugned judgment and order of conviction is patently illegal, perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He pointed out that firstly, there is no direct eye witness and entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is his submission that in such factual background, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to first establish death of Ujwala to be nothing but homicidal. He would submit that medical evidence adduced by investigating machinery is not clear and cogent about mode of death. He pointed out that confusing opinions are issued by various doctors. According to him, medical experts themselves were baffled and clueless as there is no cause of death. During treatment also there were no findings suggesting physical assault. He would strenuously submit that the FIR is lodged only on the strength of medical opinion which too was received after two years or so, after conducting postmortem and thus it is his submission that the case of prosecution ought not to have been accepted by learned trial Judge. He pointed out that case being based on circumstantial evidence, it was duty of the prosecution, at the outset, to prove motive behind the alleged occurrence. It is submitted that there is no iota of evidence regarding motive and learned trial Judge has given finding to that extent on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He pointed out that it seems from the judgment that learned trial judge has held accused guilty by applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that accused was the only person in the company of deceased and she having died, he is solely responsible. Finding fault with such conclusion, it is submitted that it was not open for the learned trial Judge to opine as above, when in fact, primary burden of establishing homicidal death was not discharged by the prosecution. Thus, learned counsel submits that such findings are not sustainable.

6. He further submitted that in fact deceased was sleeping in the n