Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant who was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'I.P.C.'), so far as the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is concerned, while directing acquittal in respect of offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. Seven persons faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution are as under : Akbarbeg (P.W. 4) is the father of Sayarabi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). The marriage of the deceased Sayarabi with accused No. 5 Riyazoddin, present appellant was performed one year back. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents and accused Nos. 3 and 6 are the brothers of accused No. 5. Accused No. 4 is the wife of accused No. 3. 3.1. It was alleged that the accused were giving ill treatment to deceased Sayarabi during the period of her stay in the matrimonial house at Parola, Dist. Jalgaon. The accused No. 5-appellant was abusing and beating the deceased Sayarabi. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had brought the deceased to her parent's house at village Dherangeon Tal Onerrangaon Dist. Jalgaon three months back. Deceased disclosed about her ill treatment at the hands of accused to her relatives. 3.2. On 12.5.1996 the marriage of niece of P.W. 4 Akbarbeg was performed at Dharangaon. Accused Nos. 3 and 5 had attended the said marriage. They demanded Rs. 2,000 for the construction of a house from P.W. 4 Akberbeg. He expressed his inability to pay the amount. 3.3. On 20.5.1996 the deceased was sent to stay at her matrimonial house alongwith accused 1 and 2. On 25.5.1996 at about 2.00 midnight P.W. 4 Akbarbeg received the message through police about the serious condition of the deceased. Thereafter he alongwith his relatives paid visit to the matrimonial house of his deceased daughter. He saw the dead body of his daughter with burn injury in her matrimonial house. He found kerosene smell on the hair and half burnt cloth. 3.4. Ramesh (P.W. 1) the Police Patil of Parola lodged an occurrence report to the police. On the basis of his report A.D. bearing No. 35/96 was registered. Inquest panchanama on the dead body was prepared on 25.5.1996 in A.D. case. Spot panchanama was also prepared in A.D.Case. Dead body was sent for conducting the post mortem to the Cottage Hospital, Parola. 3.5. Akberbeg came to know through his relative Rahanabi (P.W. 5) that the accused No. 5 committed the murder of the deceased by pouring kerosene oil on her person and setting her on fire. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 abetted the accused No. 5 in the commission of murder of the deceased. P.W. 4 Akberbeg lodged the complaint dated 25.5.1996 alleging ill-treatment to the deceased prior to 25.5.1996 and committing her murder on 24.5.1996 at about 11-00 p.m. 3.6. On the basis of his complaint crime bearing No. 121/1996 was registered with Parola Police station at about 1.00 p.m. M. D. Patil (P.W. 11) carried out the investigation of the crime. On 27.5.1996, he sent the seized articles for examination to the C.A. Aurangabad. After the completion of investigation on 14.8.1996 he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences as stated above to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Parola. 3.7. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parola by an order dated 21.8.1996 committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner, as the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 3.8. In Sessions case charge was framed against accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34, I.P.C. and against accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 under Section 302 read with Section 114, I.P.C. 3.9. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that the house caught fire due to short circuit. Deceased sustained burn injury on account of house catching fire in a short circuit. 3.10. The trial court directed acquittal of A-1 to A-4 and A-6 but held the present appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A, I.P.C. In appeal, as noted above the High Court found that the accusations so far as Section 498A are concerned are not established, but the evidence was sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence and the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances highlighted do not lead to conclude about the guilt of the accused.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand supported the judgment. The circumstances high-lighted by the trial court and the High Court are essentially as follows : (i) The appellant was residing with his wife. (ii) Death of wife at odd hours (midnight) and in unnatural manner. (iii) Kerosene smell in the body and articles around the body. (iv) False defence (i.e., fire by short circuit). ;