VISHNU SAHAI, J. - (1.)THE appellant aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.5.1983 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.6 of 1983, convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC, has come up in appeal before us.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case runs as follows : The appellant was married to Ramchandra Savaleram Gore P. W.4.Sometimes in the year 1973. Two issues were born to them viz. Sanjay and Manisha. While the appellant was pregnant and was in the 6th month of her pregnancy, when Manisha was to be born, Ramchandra underwent vasectomy. This was approximately in the year 1977-78. Manisha's birth took place in Pimpalgaon where the parents of the appellant resided. The appellant did not return to Ramchandra after Manisha's birth. About 3 years prior to the incident the appellant delivered a third child Sonu, alleged to have been the offspring from the appellant's illicit relationship with Dhanraj Thorat P. W.7.The evidence of Ramchandra is that some times in May 1982 the appellant came along with Sonu and her other two children and asked him to keep all of them. Ramchandra kept Sanjay and Manisha but refused to keep Sonu; ostensibly because he felt that he was not his child. On the first of October 1982 Pushpa again came to Ramchandra and asked him to keep Sonu. But Ramchandra and his mother refused to keep Sonu. It appears from the evidence on record that Sonu was proving a thorn in the illicit relationship of the appellant and Dhanraj. It appears that Dhanraj did not want that Sonu should stay with the appellant. It further appears that the appellant having lost her husband ( certainly on account of her own volition ) did not want to loose Dhanraj. According to the prosecution on 4th October 1982 at about 7 p. m. she intentionally committed the murder of Sonu by throwing her in a well, in Gat No.1817/1.
It appears that Narsing Chavan P. W. 2 on 5.10. 1982 at about 10 -10.30 a. m. visited Gat No.1817/1. He casually peeped inside the well and therein found the corpse of a child floating. The child was a baby, wearing a frock of red and white colour and an underwear. Consequently, at about 11 -11.30 a. m. he informed the police of Yawat Police station about what he had seen. At about 3.30 or 4 p. m. the police came and the dead body of the child was taken out from the well. It was found to be a female child aged about 3 to 4 years. No external injuries were visible on the child. It appears that on the information sent by Narsing Chavan a case of accidental death was registered by Yawat Police Station. On 6.10. 1981 PSI Arjun Baburao Kale of Yawat Police Station took charge of the investigation of the case. On enquiry he learnt that the appellant had been seen with Sonu who was putting on a frock of red colour. This arosed his suspicion and the appellant was taken into custody. On reaching Yawat Police Station PSI. Kale recorded FIR on the same day. The FIR is at Exhibit 25. On its basis a case under section 302 IPC, vide C. R. No.182 was registered. During the course of investigation PSI Kale interrogated a large number of witnesses, including Narsing, Dhanraj, Trimbakrao, Ramchandra and others. After completing the investigation he submitted the chargesheet on 12.11.1982.

Going backwards, the post mortem examination of the dead body of Sonu was conducted on 6.1. 1982 by Dr. Prabhakar, P. W.3.The doctor found no external injuries on the corpse. On internal examination he found the right lung to be congested; left lung to be stained with blood; peritoneal cavity to contain fluid; and stomach containing semi-digested food. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died before 4 to 6 hours of last meal. The doctor also opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to drowning. He stated in the trial court that the death had taken place about 36 to 70 hours prior to the time of autopsy.

(3.)THE case was committed to the court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the trial court th appellant was charged under section 302 IPC. To the said charge she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Her defence was that of denial. To substantiate it she neither adduced oral nor documentary evidence.
In all during the trial the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. We may straight away mention that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case hinges purely on circumstantial evidence. During trial the prosecution sought to establish three circumstances and the learned trial judge held that all of them were established. They are : (a) motive; (b) last seen and (c) extra judicial confession. The learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above, vide the impugned judgment.