NARAYAN NAVSHA NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was staying with his wife and children at Kartar Vasti in the village Tinvira, in Alibag taluka of Kolaba district. 28th February, 1972, was a Holi festival day. Children had gone out of the house also was the father of the accused. When father and children returned home at about 7 or 8 p.m. wife of the accused was found to have died and the accused was found sitting by her side. Father tried to contact the Police Patil, but he could not do so. In the morning again the father tried to contact him without any success. He, therefore, went to the Police Station at Poyand informed Police Constable Kadam about the same. His statement at Exhibit 7 was recorded. Police Constable Bhagwan Kadam (P.W. 2) arrived at the scene and then prepared his own complaint (Exhibit 8). P.S. I. Patil was appraised of the same. He arrived at the scene, took up the investigation, arrested the accused, charge-sheeted him, consequent to which the accused was tried by the Sessions Judge, Kolaba, in sessions Case No. 35 of 1972. The accused has been found guilty of committing the murder of his wife under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Legality of this conviction is challenged by the accused in this appeal.

(2.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused, contends that there is no evidence to support the conviction and the accused, therefore, is entitled to acquittal.

(3.) Now, it is true that there is no eye-witness to depose as to how the deceased was done to death. Evidence is entirely circumstantial. In all 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Mohan (P.W. 6), the 8 years old son of the accused and the deceased was examined at the trial. According to the prosecution, he was the eye-witness to the incident. However, not unnaturally he turned hostile. His evidence as also the evidence of the father of the accused Navasha (P.W. 5), however, establishes one thing that before the deceased was found to have died by her children as also her father-in-law Navasha, the accused and the deceased were the only inmates inside the house and the accused was seen by the side of the deceased, when they arrived at the house. Thus evidence of Mohan proves at least this much that when he, his younger brother and sister left the house for the Holi purposes, his parents, i.e. the deceased and the accused, were inside the house. To the same effect is the evidence of Navasha, though his evidence is not that firm on his point. Thus the fact that the accused and the deceased were seen together some time before she was found to have died in the house can be said to have been established on the evidence of the son of the deceased and the father of the accused, though both the witnesses have proved to be two unwilling to disclose anything that would incriminate the accused.