RAOSAHEB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appellant is the original accused No. 1 who has been convicted in Sessions Case No. 42/2005, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur, on 27/11/2013, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ghanekar and learned APP Mr. A.M. Phule for State.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Judge has convicted only accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. In fact, the said Sessions case was filed against in all 4 persons. They were charged for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Original accused Nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted by the Trial Court from all the charges. So also, the present appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The charge against the present appellant is that he has committed murder of his wife Chhayabai @ Sagarbai. The marriage between appellant and deceased had taken place about six years prior to the incident and they had two daughters, aged two years and six months on the date of incident i.e. 12/4/2005. The prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. They were the relatives of the deceased, panchas, Medical Officer and Investigating Officer. Out of them, the relatives of the deceased as well as panchas have turned hostile. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence and the conviction has been awarded mainly on the ground of Sec. 106 of Indian Evidence Act. If we consider the testimony of P.W. 5 Dr. Santosh then he had noted 3 external injuries. There was subdural haematoma present in the frontal region. The probable cause of death has been stated in postmortem report Exh. 106 as "due to injury to vital organ brain". However, in his cross-examination the Medical Officer has admitted that the injury of subdural haematoma to brain is possible due to accident. That angle has not been considered at all by the learned Trial Judge. The spot panchanama was not proved by the panchas but it came to be exhibited in the testimony of the Investigating Officer. Even if we consider the spot panchanama, it was the outside portion of the house which is stated as 'Osri'. Merely because the spot that was shown was in the house of accused, he cannot be asked to explain the circumstances in which his wife was found dead. The prosecution has not produced on record the CA report. The connecting evidence is not at all produced. Only on the basis of suspicion, the imprisonment for life has been awarded, by holding that offence under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Such conviction cannot be allowed to sustain.