The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of credible and consistent evidence, and the need for a clear connection between the accused and the alleged crimes.

JUDGMENT

SARANG V.KOTWAL,J. - The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 6/2/2015 passed by the District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa in Sessions Case No.67 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000.00 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant was not separately sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, though he was convicted under that sec. also. Out of the fine amount, Rs.25,000.00 was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under Sec. 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was given set off under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Alongwith the appellant, his parents also faced the trial. All of them were charged for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 302 and 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The other accused i.e. parents of the appellant were acquitted of all the charges.

3. We have heard Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, learned APP for the State and Advocate Mr. Z. H. Farooqui, holding for Mr. N. V. Gaware, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

4. The prosecution case is about suspicious death of the appellant's wife Jyoti on 8/1/2012. The prosecution case is that it was a homicidal death. According to the prosecution case, because of the demand made by the appellant, which was not fulfilled, Jyoti was harassed and ultimately eliminated by the appellant. It is the prosecution case that, the appellant administered poison 'Thimet' to the deceased forcibly and then hanged her on a Neem tree in an agricultural field and tried to make it appear as if the deceased had committed suicide. The appellant was not available when the FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased. After the investigation was carried out, during its course, the appellant was arrested on 9/1/2012. At the conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as follows: i) PW-1 Maruti Waman Thorat was father of the

deceased and the first informant.

ii) PW-2 Sopan Bhikaji Hodgar was maternal uncle of the deceased.

iii) PW-3 Kavita Giru Karande was a friend of the deceased.

iv) PW-4 Sanjay Motilal Achpale was a Panch for inquest Panchanama.

v) PW-5 Appasaheb Gorakshnath Dinde was a Panch for spot Panchanama.

vi) PW-6 Dr. Ashok Madhavrao Karale the medical officer, who had conducted the postmortem examination.

vii) PW-7 API, Sandesh Narhari Chakor had conducted investigation on 8/1/2012.

viii) PW-8 PSI, Shashikant Joshi had conducted investigation and had recorded statements of witnesses.

6. The defence of the appellant was of total denial.

7. After recording the evidence and statements of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant.

8. PW-1 Maruti Thorat, as mentioned earlier, was the father of the deceased Jyoti. He has deposed that, Jyoti was married to the appellant on 3/5/2009. After the marriage, for about 5 to 7 months, she was treated properly. But, thereafter, the accused started demanding Rs.50,000.00 for installing bore-well and electric motor. This allegation is made against all the accused including the two acquitted accused. It is not specifically made only against the present appellant. He has further deposed that the accused started harassing Jyoti for not fulfilling that demand. She used to tell the informant and others about the harassment caused to her when she used to visit their house. PW-1 had tried to convince the accused to treat her properly. However, there was no improvement. I