JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

1. The appellant is assailing the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2015 dated 02.06.2016 by which the appellant was held guilty and thereby stood convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT

2. Appellant was first wife of PW8 Hanumant. After five to six years of cohabitation, relations between appellant and accused became strained. Appellant used to repeatedly leave his company and go to her parents. Appellant had filed complaint at Women’s Redressal Forum. On the festival of Diwali in 2014, appellant left PW8 Hanumant and went to reside with her parents and she did not return. When all efforts of Hanumant and his parents to persuade appellant to come and cohabit failed, Hanumant performed second marriage with deceased Suvarna. Thereafter, appellant came back to Chanai to cohabit with Hanumant. Appellant was annoyed because of the second marriage and so she started harassing deceased.

On 03.12.2014, both appellant and deceased together left the house for washing clothes at the river. There, deceased who was differently abled lady, was strangulated and done to death and thereafter, her dead body was thrown in well water. Initially A.D. was registered, but subsequently offence was revealed and therefore, appellant was arrested and after investigation, chargesheeted and tried and the trial culminated into conviction. The same is now questioned here by way of instant appeal by invoking Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.].

SUBMISSIONS IN BRIEF

On behalf of the appellant :

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that impugned judgment and order is perverse and illegal. According to her, there was no case warranting conviction. It is pointed out that there was no direct evidence either on the point of motive or last seen together, which is the foundation of prosecution story. She would vehemently submit that there is no reliable evidence at all to suggest that appellant and deceased were in each other’s company when the alleged incident took place. According to learned counsel, case being based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution was required to prove motive, but the same has not been established. She pointed out that the only witness relied by prosecution in support of ‘last seen’, i.e. Gayabai, is not examined by prosecution. Therefore there is weak, scanty or no evidence about involvement of accused. It is submitted that mere pair of footwear at the scene of occurrence is not an incriminating circumstance. It is pointed out that in spite of so, such circumstances are taken into consideration by learned trial Judge. According to her, there is no independent trustworthy evidence and therefore, conclusion reached by learned trial Judge is in absence of credible evidence and hence it is submitted that the conclusion and findings being perverse, are not maintainable in the eyes of law and consequently she prays for allowing the appeal.

On behalf of the State :

4. According to learned APP, there is strong evidence about appellant leaving company of husband Hanumant and going to stay with her parents. That, as she refused to come for cohabitation, Hanumant performed second marriage with deceased who was differently abled. It is pointed out that precisely getting annoyed because of said marriage, appellant came back to reside, threatened and harassed deceased. It is submitted that in order to eliminate deceased, she was taken to river on the pretext of washing clothes and there she was strangulated and thereafter her dead body was thrown. According to learned APP, parents in law of accused and deceased are unequivocal about both ladies leaving the house together at around 3.00 p.m. Thereafter, deceased did not return alive. Appellant hurriedly left the house. Therefore it is submitted that there are strong circumstances.