JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Appellant herein is assailing judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur dated 22-07-2016 in Sessions Case No.64 of 2014 by which appellant is held guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

IN NUTSHELL CASE OF PROSECUTION IN TRIAL COURT

2. Deceased was residing with her husband, children at village Manoor. On intervening night of 24-03-2014 and 25-03-2014, there were quarrels between appellant husband and deceased wife in the house itself. Subsequently, in the late night, both of them together went to their field to water maze crop. There again earlier quarrel continued. That after getting annoyed, accused hit deceased wife with a cement stone which was used for fencing i.e. on the left side of head of deceased, as a result of which she died on the spot.

Around 04:00 a.m. accused approached PW1 Ramdas, Police Patil of the village and informed him about the incident. He took accused to the Police Station and gave report Exh.17 on the strength of which Police registered crime.

Accused came to be arrested on the same day and investigation was undertaken and after completing the same, PW11 Sudhir Patil filed chargesheet which again came to be committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, who conducted trial and held that prosecution has established the charges and thereby held appellant guilty for charge of murder of his wife and accordingly, awarded sentence of imprisonment for life.

The above judgment and order of conviction is challenged in the present appeal on the grounds raised in the appeal memo.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of Appellant :

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence of the prosecution and would submit that, there is no direct evidence regarding alleged occurrence. Questioning credibility of testimony of informant PW1 Ramdas (Police Patil), it is pointed out that there is no reason for giving so called extrajudicial confession to him. According to learned Senior Counsel, even when this witness was allegedly approached by accused around 04:00 a.m., information has not been passed to Police immediately. That further accused is not arrested immediately, rather he is arrested in the late evening and therefore, possibility of lodging false and afterthought report cannot be completely ruled out. According to him, this witness has admitted in cross, that, he was not a party to any quarrel between accused and deceased nor there was any previous complaint about behaviour and conduct of accused. It is next pointed out that answers given by this witness in cross admitting about creepers in the field clearly supports the defence of accused about accidental fall of deceased after her feet / leg getting entangled therein.

4. It is further submitted that very daughter PW3 Shubhangi and father PW4 Kisan of accused have not supported prosecution. It is submitted that though PW5 Sakharam, father of deceased has examined, he has no knowledge about actual occurrence. That he has hearsay information. Likewise taking us through the evidence of PW6 Indubai, it is submitted that mother of deceased has also no knowledge about the incident.

Consequently, it is put-forth that there is no direct and trustworthy evidence about accused assaulting his deceased wife as is alleged by prosecution. According to him, even Pancha to the spot has not supported the prosecution. Taking us through the post mortem report and answers given by the PW10 Dr.Naresh, Autopsy Doctor in cross-examination, learned Senior Counsel would submit that death is not established to be only and only homicidal. While criticizing judgment under challenge, learned Senior Counsel would submit that learned trial Judge has accepted so called extrajudicial confession, which is the sole evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The reasons assigned for accepting the extrajudicial confession are not co