- (1.) This appeal is under Section 2 of Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1970. The appellant along with his parents, sister maternal uncle and uncle's daughter were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 201 and 203 read with Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code of the murder of his wife Kanchana. In S.P. No. 125/84, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Akola by judgment dated February 10, 1987 acquitted all of them. On appeal the appellant alone was convicted under Section 302 and Section 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three years respectively by judgment dated October 30, 1991 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
(2.) The material facts that lie in short compass are thus :- Kanchana was married to the appellant in the year 1975. In course of time the appellant's father became rich, while her parent's family remained poor leading to constant humiliation. The sister of Kanchana, Vanmala, PW.5, was also married in the same village, Mangrulpir. On September 3, 1983, PW.5 went to the deceased family at about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m. and invited the mother in law of the deceased and Khanchana to attend "Teej" function in her house for which the mother-in-law refused to accept the invitation and also did not permit Kanchana to attend the function which resulted in exchange of words etc. When she was coming out, she heard abuses against the deceased and somebody being beaten. After extending invitations to two or three people when she came back home and was entering into her house. PW-9, her maid servant, came running and told her that Kanchana was dead. Thereafter she gave information to her father, PW 4 and others at Amravati. A-6 maternal uncle of the appellant, went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report, Ex-73, that while Kanchana was drying wet clothes on the top floor, there was short circuit in the house resulting her death. Mohanlal P.W-4. On receipt of the news reached the appellant's house at Mangrulpir at about 4.00 p.m. On seeing the condition of the dead body he too laid complaint of murder. In the meanwhile the police registered the crime. There police reached the spot at about 12.50 p.m. A.S.I. Jadhao, PW. 14 along with Head Constable Sharma, PW-1, conducted investigation. He drew the Panchnama, Ex-66, the scene of offence attested by PW. 7 and another. He recovered the burnt article ornaments etc. and sent the body of autopsy. It was further investigated by S.I. PW. 15. Subsequently, it was entrusted to the C.I.D. and PW. 16, Kshir Sagar conducted the investigation and laid the chargesheet. It may be relevant to state at this stage that initially the crime was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Later it was converted and the charges were framed by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
(3.) The prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW. 4 and PW. 5 to prove motive for the crime PW. 6, the Compounder and PW. 8. Tea Stall owner PW. 9, maid servant of PW 5 to prove the conduct of the accused together with the medical evidence and also chemical examiner's report. It also relied on the report Ex. 73 lodged by A. 6. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows :;