The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required for convictions based on circumstantial evidence and the need for voluntary and credible extra-judicial confessions.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed by the original accused in Sessions Case No.8/2015. He has been held guilty for committing murder of his wife.

While awarding sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Sessions Judge, Latur on 28.01.2016 has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.

2. The prosecution story is that one Rahul Ramdas Tarkase, who was serving as Assistant Police Inspector with Ausa Police Station, Dist. Latur, had received phone call from one Shesherao Lanjare, r/o Umbadga (Bk) informing that a dead body of a lady is lying in the field of one Dipak Thorat of Umbadga (Bk) village and, therefore, API Mr. Tarkase with his team had gone to the spot. Inquest Panchnama as well as spot panchnama was prepared with the help of two panchas. At that point itself the land owner Dipak Thorat gave information to Police Station and, therefore, Accidental Death under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered vide A.D. No.46/2014. The postmortem was got done on 23.10.2014 and the probable cause of death of the said lady was given as “the most probable cause of death is asphyxia due to smothering”. The lady was around 20-25 years old and prior to 18.45 hours of 22.10.2014 some unknown person had committed her murder by pressing her face and nose and then left the dead body in open space, thereby screening the real offender and, therefore, on behalf of State API Mr. Tarkase lodged First Information Report against unknown person. It came to be registered for the offence under Section 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.177/2014. During the course of the investigation efforts were made to establish the identity of the dead body. Press Note was given along with the photograph. It was then established that the deceased was Neelam Vishal Thorat i.e. wife of the present appellant. Thereafter statements of the witnesses were recorded. It appears from the prosecution story that the family members of deceased Neelam had caught hold of the accused, who was at his sisters place at Vikram Nagar, Latur. When he was asked about the whereabouts of Neelam, he made confession before them that he has killed Neelam. The family members contended that Neelam and accused left their house (parents of deceased) around 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. from Ambedkar Chowk together on 21.10.2014, by saying that they would buy ticket for Pune and would go to Pune. However, they both did not return and attempts to reach to the mobile of the accused failed. After the alleged confession was given the accused was produced in the Police Station, thereupon he was arrested. Supplementary statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused had disclosed that he had kept his mobile in the house of his aunt and, therefore, the said mobile was seized by drawing panchnama. The clothes of the deceased, clothes of accused and other articles which were seized during the course of the investigation were sent for chemical analysis. It is also the prosecution case that while the accused was in jail he had given letter on 26.12.2014 in the name of Suresh Machchhindra Satpute – father of the deceased, wherein also he had confessed about the murder. That letter came to be seized by drawing panchnama. After the completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ausa.

3. After the committal of the case charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code only. The trial was conducted after accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. After hearing both sides and perusing the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Latur has convicted the accused, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Heard learned Advocat