The judgment emphasizes the need for caution in relying on circumstantial evidence, particularly dog tracking, and highlights the importance of establishing a clear nexus between the accused and the alleged offences.

JUDGMENT

1. This Application is preferred to enlarge the Applicant-accused on bail.

2. The Applicant is arraigned for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for having committed murder of his wife and caused disappearance of evidence with a view to screen himself from the legal punishment.

3. The marriage of the Applicant was solemnized with Pramila (deceased) two years prior to the occurrence. A month prior to the occurrence, the Applicant and the deceased had started to reside in Flat No.1002, C Wing, Mhada Building No.10, Pathardi Shivar, Nashik, the premises of Mr. Sachin Devram Zole, a nephew of Mr. Tanaji Kachare, the first informant. On 24/10/2020 at about 3.15 p.m., the first informant's sister called and informed the first informant that the Applicant had called and apprised her that the deceased was done to death while the Applicant had gone for work. After visiting the house of the deceased and noticing the situation thereat, including the condition of the body of the deceased, the first informant entertained suspicion about the veracity of the claim of the Applicant. Hence, the first informant lodged a report against the Applicant, alleging that for some reason, it was the Applicant who had killed the deceased.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses and recorded their statements. The Investigating Officer took the assistance of the dog squad and the identity of the Applicant was revealed as the killer of the deceased during the course of dog tracking. Post completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be lodged.

5. I have heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State.

6. The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there is no material to establish the nexus between the offence and the Applicant. None of the prosecution witnesses has deposed about the martial discord. Nor any incident prior to the occurrence, which could give rise to a credible suspicion, is stated by any of the prosecution witnesses. The instant case, according to the learned Advocate for the Applicant, is one of no evidence.

7. Per contra, the learned APP would urge that the first informant had highlighted the circumstances which roused the suspicion about the version narrated by the Applicant and there are statements of the witnesses which indicate that, on the day of the occurrence, no visitor visited the premises, except the owner of the said building. Laying emphasis on the dog tracking report, in the backdrop of the fact that it was the Applicant alone who was residing with the deceased, it was submitted that it cannot be said that there is no material to prima facie establish the nexus of the Applicant The fact that during the course of the Applicant's medical examination on 25/10/2020, an abrasion was noticed on the left arm, above elbow joint anterior side, was also pressed into service, to incriminate the Applicant.

8. I have carefully perused the report under Sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the documents annexed with it. Few facts appear to be rather uncontroverted. The Applicant and the deceased had shifted to Flat No.1002, C Wing, Mhada Building No.10, Pathardi Shivar, Nashik, a month prior to the occurrence. Apart from the deceased, the Applicant was the only inhabitant of the house where the body of the deceased was found. Second, there is not much controversy over the fact that the deceased met death on account of combined effect of asphyxia due to smothering and craniocerebral damage due to blunt trauma to head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The homicidal nature of the death is, therefore, not in contest.

9. Indisputably, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. I have perused the statements of the witnesses, including the mother and sister of the deceased. They have not stated that there was any martial discord. Even in the FIR, the first inform