- (1.)The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 IPC and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the substantive part of the charge under section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo for a period of two years on the charge under section 201 IPC by addl. sessions judge, Thane for having committed the murder of his wife on the intervening night of 1.6.1992 and 2.6.1992. The said conviction and sentence having been upheld by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, the appellant is before us in this appeal
(2.)Briefly, the prosecution case is that the relationship between the appellant and his wife-deceased was not cordial since the appellant was addicted to alcohol and he was suspecting the character of his wife. Consequent upon that at one point of time she left the appellant and started residing with her father. Thereafter, there was a settlement pursuant to which deceased came back to the appellant's house. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the night between 1st and 2nd June, 1992 there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. During the said quarrel between husband and wife, the appellant, it is alleged, strangulated her which resulted in her death. Thereafter, he dragged the dead body of the deceased out of his house upto a distance of 500 ft. and left it by the side of a Nala. He then supposed to have called pws. 4 and PW. 9 who were working as watchman and superintendent respectively of the Ashram Shala and told them that his wife was abducted by 5 or 6 persons and they had taken her away in a truck. The said witnesses persuaded the appellant to make a complaint but the appellant did not do so and said that his wife would return on her own in the next morning. According to the prosecution, next morning he told pws. 4 and 9 that whatever was said by the appellant to the witnesses on the previous night is incorrect. As a matter of fact he had murdered his wife during the quarrel and he was in intoxicated condition. This extra judicial confession was not only made to the PWs. 4 and 9 but also it was made in the presence of PWs. 1, 3,4 and 7. Thereafter, it is stated that the appellant lodged a complaint in the police station - exhibit 31 in which he confessed that he had committed the murder of his wife. On the basis of this complaint a case was also registered and after investigation he was charged for the offences as stated above.
(3.)In support of its case the prosecution relied upon the evidence of-PW8, father of the deceased, who stated that frequently suspecting the character of his daughter there used to be quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as also the appellant was addicted to alcohol. The prosecution also relied on the witness of appellant's child Sachin, PW. 5 who at the time of the incident was about 4 and 1/2 years old. It also relied upon the witnesses PWs. 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9 to establish the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to them. On the said basis of witness and the eye-witness-child PW. 5 learned sessions judge found the appellant guilty of said charges and sentenced him as stated above.