The prosecution must fully establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

1. Present Appeal has been filed by original accused No. 1 challenging his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, District-Latur in Sessions Case No.05 of 2016 on 14th May 2018, whereby he came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It will not be out of place to mention here that in all five accused persons faced the trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.1 came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused Nos. 2 to 5 came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the same Judgment.

2. PW-7 Chandrakant Sheshsrao Khadade lodged report with Shirur-Anantpal Police Station on 1st September 2015. It was informed in the First Information Report (for short “the FIR”) that his sister Savita got married to accused No.1 Ramesh in 2006. Accused persons started harassing her when she had not begotten issue for about three to four years after the marriage. She was kept starved and harassed on account that she should bring money for purchasing four wheeler vehicle. Savita used to inform the harassment to the informant and other relatives. However, due to poor financial condition the amount could not be given. The harassment then got intensified. Savita had then lodged a report with Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell. Accused No.1 assured that he would look after Savita properly and therefore, he took Savita for cohabitation after about seven to eight months. Thereafter again Savita informed that she is being harassed by her in-laws and husband. Informant had gone to the matrimonial home of Savita on 29th August 2015 for Rakhi Pournima festival, whereupon Savita again conveyed about the ill-treatment to her. Informant persuaded her and came back to his house. But on 1st September 2015, his relative Shivaji Kompale from Latur gave information to him that around 9.00 a.m. Savita has been assaulted and murdered by the appellant. Informant went to the matrimonial home of Savita around 10.30 to 11.00 a.m. He found Savita in dead condition in the house, however, there was no evidence. He has then lodged report with Police Station, on the basis of which offence came to be registered vide Crime No. 69 of 2015.

3. The Police had conducted inquest panchnama and sent the dead body for postmortem. Thereafter the panchnama of the spot was got executed and other panchnamas of seizure of the clothes of the deceased and after the arrest of the accused, the arrest panchnamas were got executed. Statements of witnesses were got recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

4. After committal of the case, charge was framed. All the accused had pleaded not guilty. Prosecution has then examined in all eleven witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge has pronounced the Judgment as aforesaid i.e. convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, which is under challenge in this Appeal.

5. The appellant was earlier represented by an Advocate, however by order dated 31st October 2023 the said Advocate came to be discharged. Then learned Advocate Mr. Sachin Panale has been appointed to represent the appellant, i.e. legal has been provided to the appellant.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly. The appellant is not disputing that deceased Savita was found murdered in the house but only on that count the learned trial Judge has invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.