JUDGMENT

Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2007 whereby the High Court upheld the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No. 90/2005 by which the appellant had been convicted for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for short) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The appellant was initially charged and tried for an offence under Section 302 and 498-A of the I.P.C. for killing his wife by hitting her on her head with a woodenlog as he was suspecting her loyalty and character.

3. The specific case of the prosecution which was registered under Section 302 and 498-A of the I.P.C. is that the appellant- Attarsingh Barakya Pawara was residing along with his wife and 9 children at village Majanipada in Shirpur Taluk. On 22.6.2005, the complainant-Khandu Kalu Ahire who is also the village Kotwal received an information from one Ramesh Pawara, resident of Majanipada and Appa Shahada Pawara, resident of Fattepur village that the appellant Attarsing has committed murder of his wife by hitting her with a woodenlog on her head. On receipt of this information, the village Kotwal along with the Sarpanch Bhatu Ditya and one Rattan Lalsing went to the appellant’s house and found the dead body of Nagibai (deceased wife of the appellant) lying on the floor of the house which indicated that the deceased had sustained head injury and had bleeded profusely. The woodenlog was found near her dead body and the appellant was also found sitting in the house. The village Kotwal enquired about the incident and questioned the appellant as to how his wife had died. The appellant replied that his wife was of a loose character and, therefore, he had killed her by hitting woodenlog on her head. He narrated the incident to other persons accompanying the village Kotwal.

4. The village Kotwal thereafter came to the police station at Shirpur and lodged the report of the incident (Exh.15) on the basis of which the offence was registered vide crime No. 161/2005 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The police thereafter completed the usual legal formality by reaching on the spot and as the body was found there, inquest was also conducted and spot panchnama was also prepared whereby the clothes of the accused containing blood stains were seized. Woodenlog (Article No.3) which was found lying on the spot was also seized at the time of preparation of spot panchnama. The body of the deceased was then sent to the Government Hospital, Shirpur where post-mortem was conducted.

5. The accused-appellant was subsequently arrested and taken to the police station. Investigation thereafter followed in course of which it transpired that it was the appellant who had killed his wife Nagibai as he was suspecting her character. Charges were then framed against the appellant under Section 498-A and 302 of the I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses on the question as to whether the appellant had subjected his wife to cruelty by giving her beating and abuses from time to time suspecting her character. The trial court further examined the question as to whether the accused had committed the murder of his wife Nagibai in his house at village Majanipada and thirdly as to what other offence he has committed.

7. The defence story set up on behalf of the appellant is that his wife had fallen down on the floor of the house due to which she sustained severe head injury which resulted in her death.

8. The trial court on a scrutiny of the evidence and other materials on record rejected the defence story on the basis of the post- mortem report as Dr. Gohil w