- (1.) The Appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for six months and R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for six months, by the IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, by Judgment dated 6.9.2005, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2003, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus. PW-8 Police Constable Avinath More, who, on 14.1.2003 was attached to the Daund Police Station, recorded the report submitted by the Appellant at Exhibit 30. On the basis of the report of the Appellant at Exhibit 30, Accidental Death No. 2 of 2003 was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation of the said Accidental Death was then entrusted to PW-11 Head Constable Dinkar Garud. PW-11 Head Constable Dinkar Garud, who was attached to the Kurkumbh Police Station Out Post, was entrusted with the investigation of A.D. No. 2 of 2003. He accordingly proceeded to the scene of the incident and prepared the inquest panchnama of the dead body of deceased Gokula, in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 14. The dead body was then referred to the Rural Hospital, Daund for postmortem examination. PW-11 Head Constable Garud, thereafter, drew the scene of the incident panchnama in the presence of witnesses at Exhibit 35. From the scene of the incident, PW-11 Head Constable Garud seized one nylon rope and two clothes pieces stained with blood. The aforesaid articles were sealed in the presence of the panchas. Thereafter, the sketch of the scene of the incident was also drawn. The further investigation was then entrusted to PW-13 P.I. Ashok Survagandh. PW-13 P.I. Ashok Survagandh, who was attached to the Daund Police Station was entrusted with the investigation by PW-11 Head Constable Dinkar Garud. PW-1 Sandipan, father of deceased Gokula came to the Police Station and lodged his report at Exhibit 19. On the basis of the said report, an offence vide Crime No. 8 of 2003 came to be registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation of the said crime was then carried out by PW-13 P.I. Survagandh. The Appellant came to be arrested under arrest panchnama at Exhibit 17 in the presence of the panch witnesses. The statements of witnesses were recorded. During custodial interrogation, on 16.1.2003, the Appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place where a nylon rope had been concealed by him. Accordingly, a memorandum of the Appellant was drawn at Exhibit 24 in the presence of PW - 5 Navnath. The Appellant led the Police and Panch and recovered a nylon rope Article 1 which came to be seized under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 25. On 19.1.2003, viscera was referred to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition at Exhibit 38. On 20.1.2003, the clothes of the Appellant were seized in the presence of PW-12 Ajik Franciee under seizure memorandum at Exhibit 40. The seized property was, thereafter, referred to the Chemical Analyzer at Pune under requisition at Exhibit 41. The reports of the Chemical Analyzer are at Exhibits 42 and 43. Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the Appellant was filed. Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Gokula was performed by PW-6 Dr. Udgirkar. PW-6 Dr. Udgirkar noticed two bluish black ligature marks of 3 x 4 cm. thick groove. There were injuries to the tongue on account of bite. An abrasion on the right index finger was also noticed. One ligature mark was faint in appearance than the other. The thyroid cartilage was fractured. The Medical Officer opined that the first ligature mark which was extending from right side to the left side extending up to posterior side of the neck facing upward was a postmortem ligature mark. PW-6 Dr. Udgirkar, therefore, opined that cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. Postmortem report is at Exhibit 27.
(2.) On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, Trial Court, vide Exhibit 7 framed charge against the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellant as can be culled out from his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that wife Gokula had committed suicide and the suicide note left by her was deliberately destroyed by the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-13 Ashok Survagandh. Prosecution in support of its case examined 13 witnesses. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the Appellant as aforestated.
(3.) In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.;