Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in homicide cases even without proof of motive, provided a complete chain of evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 273/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. The appellant carries a blame of committing murder of his wife. The prosecution’s case is, however, based on circumstantial evidence.

3. The investigation was set in motion upon information given by one Vivek Subhashrao Raut. According to him, he has agricultural land situated at Village Pardi. He is, as such, resident of Morshi. Fifteen days back, appellant came to him along with his wife, namely, Gajri Uike and asked for work in his agricultural land. The informant employed appellant and his wife and also permitted them to reside in the hut situated in the agricultural land. The couple had a daughter, aged about two and half years.

4. On 21-8-2018, the informant had been to market at Morshi and he met appellant and his wife at around 2.00 p.m. Informant gave appellant Rs. 500/- for marketing. On 22-8-2018, at about 7.00 a.m., when informant visited his agricultural land and went to his hut, he saw appellant’s wife lying on the floor. She had sustained bleeding injury on her head. She had expired. The appellant and his daughter were not found in the hut. The informant took a search but could not find them. He made a phone call to Morshi Police Station and informed that appellant had killed his wife due to some domestic reason and ran away with his daughter. Police took note of the information in the station diary being Station Diary No. 21/2018. Police registered offence vide Crime No. 337/2018 under Section 302 of the IPC. The investigation was done which includes visiting spot, performing inquest, conducting postmortem through doctor, recording statement, arresting accused, recovering weapon i.e. axe, seizure of clothes of deceased as well as accused as also the blood samples etc. As per postmortem report, the cause of death of deceased was “hemorrhage and shock due to the head injury”.

5. The investigation culminated into filing charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC. The charge was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The defence of appellant was of total denial. The appellant, however, did not examine any witness in defence. The trial Court, after having considered the evidence and after having heard both sides, found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

6. The appellant is aggrieved by aforesaid finding and has filed the present appeal.

7. We have heard Ms. F. N. Haidari, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State/respondent. We have gone through the impugned judgment, evidence, the documents and other material placed on record. We will refer to the same to the extent necessary to decide following points that arise for our consideration. We have recorded our findings thereon for the reasons to follow.

REASONS

As to Point Nos. 1 to 3

8. The points, being interlinked, are decided by common reasoning. The prosecution was under obligation to prove that Gajri suffered homicidal death. P.W. 3 Dr. Pallavi Bhagwat has conducted postmortem. The body was brought to hospital at about 12.00 noon. She found that body was fresh. Riger mortis was present. Following external injuries were noticed.

“1] Cont