SHIVAJI PATHAJI BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appellant along with Prabhakar Shahurao Tangade, was charged for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment delivered on 24-10-1994 in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1994 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad ended in conviction of the present appellant/original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and acquittal of the original accused No. 2. This judgment and sentence is under challenge by the appellant in the present appeal.

(2.) ACCORDING to prosecution deceased Pushpabai was wife of the appellant. They were married about 7 years prior to the incident and were blessed with two children. Deceased is said to have developed illicit intimacy with accused No. 2 namely Prabhakar Shahurao Tangade. The knowledge suspicion of this illicit intimacy of his wife with accused No. 2 motived appellant to commit murder of his wife Pushpabai on the night of 3-8-1993. According to prosecution case appellant committed murder of his wife in a gutter at a distance of about 25-30 feet from his residence, by throttling and thereafter he brought the dead body to his residence and tried to represent that she had died natural death, because of loose motions and vomiting. On report from Police Patil Dawarwadi Police Station Pachod investigated the matter and having arrived at a conclusion that two accused (present appellant and acquitted accused No. 2) committed murder of Pushpabai in furtherance of common intention, launched the prosecution, which culminated into conviction of present appellant, as described above.

(3.) IN this matter, where admittedly there is no direct evidence of accused having committed murder of his wife-Pushpabai, the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence in order to bring home the guilty, and the trial Court returned findings of guilty on the basis of following chain of circumstances, established by the prosecution, in the opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge.