The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to the accused's guilt; mere presence in the house does not shift the burden of proof to the accused where evidence is lacking.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. This is an Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.PC’] against the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No.129/2014 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘IPC’] and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Prosecution’s case as revealed from the Police Report is as under:

(a) The Appellant, resident of village Ter, Taluka and District Osmanabad killed his wife – Neha @ Pooja (hereinafter referred as ‘Deceased’) by strangulation with the Janeu [Sacred Thread] at their home on 05.01.2014 when the other members of their house were not present. The motive behind killing his wife was that she was opposing the extra material relation of the Appellant with another woman. The mother of deceased i.e. Informant, was informed by the father of Appellant over telephone that, her daughter suffered attack. The Informant reached the village Ter. The Informant went to the Civil Hospital where the dead body was kept. She noticed ligature marks over the neck of Deceased. She lodged the Report with the concerned Police Station and Crime No.2/2014 came to be registered against the Appellant.

(b) The Investigating Offcer conducted Inquest and referred the dead body for postmortem. The spot panchnama was prepared. The statements of witnesses came to be recorded. The Appellant came to be arrested. The Janeu which was used by the Appellant for commission of crime came to be seized at the instance of the Appellant. The postmortem report came to be collected. On completion of investigation, the Appellant came to be Charge-sheeted.

3. On committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the Charge against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC vide Exhibit – 4, to which, the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the Charge, the Prosecution examined in all seventeen (17) witnesses and brought on record the relevant documents. After the Prosecution closed it’s evidence, the Appellant’s statement came to be recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.PC. The Appellant denied the Prosecution’s case and evidence. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court passed the aforementioned impugned Judgment.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that the evidence available on record do not prove the Charge against the Appellant. He submitted that the Appellant’s wife committed suicide as her marriage with the Appellant was against her wish. He submitted that merely because the Appellant’s wife was found dead in her matrimonial home which was shared by in-laws, the Appellant cannot be convicted merely because he was the husband. He submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the Appellant was at home at the time of incident or the deceased was lastly seen with the Appellant. He relied on the Judgment of Sikkim High Court in the case of Garja Bir Rai Vs. State of Sikkim; LAWS(SIK)-2019-5-8 in support of his submissions. He submits that the Trial Court has erred in convicting the Appellant on the basis of insuffcient evidence and the Appeal be allowed.

5. It is submitted by the learned APP that the Appellant was the husband of Deceased and death occurred in the Appellant’s house. He submitted that the deceased - Pooja being the wife, was in the custody of the Appellan