IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of motive does not absolve the accused if the evidence sufficiently establishes their guilt.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

R.M.JOSHI, J. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 15/11/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 150/2016 of conviction for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fne of Rs.10, 000.00, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Case of prosecution can be narrated in brief as under :- On 19/6/2016, Ashok Lakhan Lal Sukla Sura (appellant) went to Sadar Bazaar police station at around 6:30 a.m. and met Duty Offcer and disclosed to him that he had committed murder of his wife (Pooja). He had knife stained with blood in his hand. So also his hands and clothes were smeared with human blood. The Duty Offcer took him to PSI Pardesi. Therefore, police along with the said person went to his house situated on frst foor in building near Maratha building at Charvai Pura. The said room admeasured 1010 sq. ft. wherein dead body of a woman was found lying with number of injuries on her person. Police conducted Punchnama of the spot in presence of panch witnesses. PSI Pardesi at around 12:19 p.m. registered First Information Report (FIR) on behalf of the State and offce came to be registered. Appellant was taken into custody, knife brought by him to the police station which was kept in safe custody was seized drawing seizure panchanama.

3. PI Nimbhore conducted investigation into the crime. He recorded statements of witnesses and muddemal properties seized were sent to forensic laboratory and on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was fled against the appellant.

4. As appellant abjured charge, he was tried. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined eight witnesses i.e. P.S.I. Pardeshi (PW 1)(Informant) (Exhibit 14), Pradeep Bhadare (P.H.C.) (Exhibit 19), Namdeo Borse (PW 3) (Panch witness) (Exhibit 20), Manoj Kajve (PW 4) (Memorandum panch) (Exhibit 25), Sandeep Sura (Brother of accused) (Exhibit 33), Dr. Bhimsing Chavan (Medical Offcer) (PW 6) (autopsy) (Exhibit 38), Bhanudas Nimbhore (Investigating Offcer) (Exhibit 44) and Shivnath Yadav (PW 8) (father of deceased).

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and having regard to the nature of evidence adduced, the guilt cannot be said to have been conclusively proved. To support his contention, he relied upon the circumstances on record which indicate that though allegedly the appellant had been to the police station at about 6.30 am, however, the knife allegedly carried with him was seized only after 6 to 8 hours, which creates doubt about its recovery. It is further contended that there is no evidence on record to show that knife was kept in the sealed condition till it was sent for chemical examination. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Motia, 1953 SCC Online Raj 51. According to him, in case of circumstantial evidence whenever there is missing link, the guilt of the accused cannot be said to have been proved. By referring to observations in the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, it is stated that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the chain of events was complete and any infrmity or lacuna in the prosecution case cannot be cured by false defence or any plea of the accused.

6. He further drew attention of this Court to the cross examination of panch witness as well as evidence of brother of appellant which shows that the house of the appellant is situated at such a place with access from terrace of the adjoining building. According to him, in view of evidence on record showing articles in the house being in scattered condition, the theory of defence that the possibility of deceased being killed in an attempt to commit theft is probabilise