JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.194 of 2010, thereby recording guilt and conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), convict has preferred instant appeal.

PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT IN BRIEF

2. Informant’s daughter Madhuri was married to appellant on 20-01-2010. On the strength of FIR lodged by PW1 Bhagwan Govinda Patil, father of deceased and informant, crime was registered for offence under Sections 302, 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC against husband and parents-in-laws. Informant alleged that after marriage of his deceased daughter with Mukesh (appellant), she was treated properly for barely 15 days. Thereafter, ill-treatment began. She was beaten and kept starved for failing to bring articles like fridge, gas-stove and cooler. Such ill-treatment mated out to her by accused persons was promptly informed by her to informant. Informant alleged that parents-in-law used to instigate husband, who in turn used to abuse and beat her. There were taunting and comments about not cooking properly.

On 15-03-2010 informant received information from one Ushabai Ishwar Patil that clothes of accused appellant are blood stained and his wife Madhuri is not with him and therefore, informant with his relatives rushed to Kanchanwadi. From a villagers, he learnt about Madhuri being shifted to the hospital. From landlord, he learnt that appellant and Madhuri had left the house in the evening for a walk, but appellant alone returned. His clothes were blood stained and therefore, Police were informed. Accused husband took Police and he pointed the spot where Madhuri was lying with injuries in a pool of blood. Thereafter, informant set law into motion by lodging report Exh.41.

PW12 Rajendrasing carried out and completed investigation and chargesheeted accused for above offence.

Case was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who permitted prosecution to lead evidence both oral and documentary and after receiving evidence and closure pursis, incriminating material was brought to the notice of accused persons.

Both sides were heard by learned trial Judge and on appreciating the evidence, he reached to a conclusion that prosecution failed to bring home the charges against husband and in-laws for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC and thereby acquitted them of such charge, however, learned trial Judge accepted the case of prosecution about appellant intentionally and knowingly committing murder of Madhuri and thereby hold him guilty for charge under Section 302 of the IPC and he was convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

On behalf of Appellant :

3. The sum and substance of the arguments made by learned Counsel for appellant is that apparently it is a false implication. There is no cogent, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Taking us through the prosecution evidence, it is submitted that there is no direct eye witness account and case of prosecution is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. According to him, only circumstance relied by prosecution is last seen together but said circumstance is also not cogently and firmly proved. Taking us through the evidence of PW4 Eknath and PW5 Jaywantabai, it is submitted that these witnesses are examined for proving circumstance of last seen together, however, according to him, the answers given by these witnesses in crossexamination clearly suggest that their evidence is not sufficient to hold circumstance of last seen together as proved. That their testimonies are full of omissions and contradictions. He would submit that infact PW4 Eknath, landlord has admitted that he never heard quarrel or dispute between husband and wife. Therefore, there was no motive or intention and at this point learned Counsel would submit that case being based on circumstantial evi