The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of direct evidence and medical reports in proving a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

S.G.DIGE, J. - The appellant - original accused impugns a judgment and order dtd. 17/1/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No.92 of 2014, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). For the offence punishable under sec. 302 of IPC, the appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 06 (six) months. For the offence punishable under sec. 323 of IPC, the appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 06 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month. The appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 504 of the IPC.

Brief facts of the case are as under :

2. The deceased Yogita was married with appellant. They have son, namely, Gaurav, aged 4 years from their wedlock. When Yogita was cohabiting with the appellant at his village Kokale, the appellant was not gainfully employed and used to consume alcohol. He also used to suspect the character of Yogita, and on that count the appellant used to assault Yogita. Due to this, Kaushalya (complainant, PW-1) mother of Yogita brought Yogita and her son to her house at Deopur, Dhule. After some days, the appellant came to Dhule and requested (complainant) mother of Yogita that he will not consume liquor hereinafter and requested to allow him to reside with Yogita at Deopur, Dhule. Considering the future of Yogita and her son, complainant (PW-1) and family members allowed the appellant to reside at Deopur, Dhule. Thereafter, Yogita used to go for labour work, whereas the appellant used to go to a garage for work for his livelihood but the appellant would spend his income for consuming liquor. The appellant would take suspicion on the character of Yogita and would assault her. Complainant and family members persuaded the appellant to behave properly, but it was in vain.

3. On 23/2/2014 at around 7.30 p.m. the complainant, his son Avinash, Yogita and step mother of Yogita, namely, Nanda and son of Yogita, namely, Gaurav, were present at home. Then the appellant came there and asked Yogita, whether she did not cook food for him. Yogita replied that she had just come from work, thereon the appellant abused Yogita and went towards chair where Yogita was sitting he suddenly took out a scissor which was hidden in his hand and assaulted on Yogita's chest by that scissor. Due to said assault, Yogita shouted loudly and fell down. The appellant again assaulted on Yogita's thigh with scissor. Complainant, Nanda and Avinash tried to stop the appellant, at that time appellant slapped complainant and assaulted her with scissor on her left hand. Due to shouting of the complainant and others, some persons from nearby area rushed there and caught hold the appellant and take him out of the house. Thereafter, Yogita, who had sustained bleeding injuries, was immediately taken to Civil Hospital, Dhule. From there, she was taken to Siddheshwar, Sudha and Sparsh Private Hospitals but the Doctors of the said Hospitals refused to admit her, hence, she was again brought to the Civil Hospital, Dhule, where the Doctor on duty declared her as dead. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint against the appellant. The Police registered the offences against the appellant under Ss. 302, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against appellant. The case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule. Charge was framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. The statement of appellant under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] has been recorded. It is defence of the appellant that on the day of incident he