The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in homicide cases, relying on clear circumstantial evidence while providing plausible alternative explanations.

1. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under S.302 and S.201 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and R.I. for three years, respectively, with default stipulation, vide the judgment and order dated 02.05.2019, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions case No.92 of 2016. The appellant is, therefore, in this appeal before us.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: -
Appellant married Karishma (deceased) on 10.07.2016, at village Kavtha - Pati. The appellant started suspecting character of his wife (Karishma). He, therefore, assaulted on her cheek. On 2-3 occasions, post marriage, Karishma had been to her parental house. She had related the same to her mother. It so happened that on 25.08.2016, Karishma (deceased) was found dead at her matrimonial home. It was said that saree was around her neck. Her brother - in - law Balaji informed Karishma's father (PW 2 - Ram) that she committed suicide. PW 2 - Ram along with her wife and other relations, therefore, visited Karishma's house. After funeral, they went back to their village. On the other hand, the son of village Police Patil had informed in writing to the concerned police station that Karishma committed suicide by hanging. Based on the said report, a case of unnatural death (A.D.) was registered. An enquiry therein was made. Spot panchnama (Exh.42), inquest and autopsy were conducted during A.D. enqiry. Post mortem report indicates the that the deceased died due to "cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia due to compression of neck structures due to strangulation i.e. throttling (manual strangulation)".

3. A Police Head Constable (Kishor Mangalgire), therefore, lodged the FIR (Exh.4). Based on the said FIR, a crime, being C.R. No.216 of 2016 was registered for the offences punishable under S.302 and S.201 of Indian Pena Code. Statements of the persons acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. Seized articles were forwarded to the F.SL. for analysis and report. The appellant was arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against him.

4. The trial court framed Charge (Exh.23). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was of false implication. According to him, the deceased committed suicide. The neighbours and PW 10 - Vijaykumar, son of village Police Patil had witnessed the same. For no oblique motive, the deceased was removed from hanging state and laid on the floor. It is his defence that the deceased was not happy with him. Her marriage took place against her wish.

5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court convicted and consequently, sentenced the appellant, as stated above.

6. Necessarily, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Before adverting to the evidence on record, it would, therefore, be necessary to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , 1984 (4) SCC 116 : (AIR 1984 SC 1622) as under : -
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable o