JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.) :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad dated 01-04-2016 in Sessions Case No.51 of 2013, holding appellant Kailas guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-.

FACTS OF THE CASE IN NUTSHELL

2. Deceased Rupali, sister of PW1 Bhaginath Vishnu Chavan, was married to appellant Kailas in 2005. In 2009, accused, while staying with deceased, started suspecting her fidelity and on such count he beat her. On information received from deceased, accused was given understanding. Four months prior to death of Rupali, she had returned back to her maternal house alleging beating by accused on chest. After 15 days, on assurance of good treatment, she went back to cohabit with accused and they started residing in a rented room owned by PW3 Dilip Chormale. On 17-12-2012 informant brother received a telephonic message that some untoward incident has taken place in the house of his sister and so he rushed to her house and found dead-body of his sister. Accused was not present there. Police prepared inquest and referred body for post mortem and thereafter, informant brother set law into motion, on the strength of which, crime No.I-169 of 2012 was registered with MIDC Cidco Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After completion of investigation and after being charge-sheeted, trial commenced and on its conclusion after hearing both the sides, learned trial Judge reached to a finding that prosecution has established that death of Rupali was homicidal one and accused strangulated her and intentionally committed her murder and hence, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-.

3. We have heard both the sides.

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

4. Here learned Advocate for the appellant put-forth following grounds while assailing the impugned judgment.

I) Firstly there is no iota of evidence either in support of so called direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.

(II) Secondly when on same set of circumstances and evidence, accused has been acquitted from the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC and therefore, conviction ought not to have been recorded even for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

(III) Thirdly, informant has hear say information which is allegedly received from the landlord. However, even landlord was out of the house for night duty and therefore, he is unaware of the events which took place in the house of accused. Therefore, his evidence ought not to have been relied and accepted by the learned trial Judge.

(IV) Fourthly important witness like son of landlord namely Ashok, who claimed to have seen accused just after midnight, is not examined. Evan wife of landlord, who was material witness, is not examined.

(V) Fifthly case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Rather it was a perfect case for benefit of doubt.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF STATE

5. Per contra, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge, it is submitted by the learned APP that there is clear and clinching evidence about mal-treatment to deceased on account of suspicion of her character. Brother, parents and relatives of deceased are unequivocal about such treatment meted out to deceased. That accused was the only person in the company of deceased and it is confirmed by none other than landlord. Appellant ought to have discharged the burden of establishing the circumstances which led to unnatural death of his wife. Autopsy Doctor has confirmed death of deceased due to strangulation. Therefore, involvement of none other than accused is cogently proved. In the light of such evidence on record, it is put-forth that no fault could be found whatsoever in the conclusion reached by the learned t