- (1.) The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 30th January 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months. The learned Trial court has acquitted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW3 Smt. Kasturabai Ram Pawar was the sister of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti Ramesh Rathod. The appellant is the husband of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. The complainant and the family of the appellant originally hail from the State of Karnataka. They had been to Malegaon Cooperative Sugar Factory, Shivnagar, Taluka Baramati for doing the labour work. The complainant Smt. Kasturabai and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti along with her husband i.e. the appellant were staying in the neighbouring houses. On 13.11.2009, the complainant Smt. Kasturabai came from her work at about 8 p.m. and enquired about Kavita @ Jyoti and the appellant who were suppose to join their work in the factory at about 8 p.m. On enquiry, she came to know that Kavita @ Jyoti with her husband i.e. the appellant herein had gone to the forest to collect fuel wood at about 4 p.m. on the said day, however they did not return till that time. The complainant saw the small kids of Kavita @ Jyoti were weeping in the house. She served food to them and children slept there. The complainant and the other persons tried to search Kavita @ Jyoti and the appellant, however, they were not found. That on 14.11.2009 while the complainant Smt. Kasturabai and others were taking the search of Kavita @ Jyoti, they came to know that the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti was lying in the sugarcane crop of one Bhapkar and the murder had been committed by strangulation by use of a towel. (ii) PW3 Smt. Kasturabai lodged the complaint with the Baramati Police station, which came to be registered as CR No.107 of 2009 under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. PW5 Balkrishna Govind Salunke was then attached to Baramati Police station. After the lodgment of the first information report on 14.11.2009 by the complainant Smt.Kasturabai, he recorded the said CR No.107 of 2009 and took over the investigation of the same. He visited the spot of the incident, prepared spot panchanama and took photographs of the dead body. A towel was found fastened to the neck of the dead body. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. PW5 collected the advance cause of death certificate wherein it was opined that the death of Kavita @ Jyoti was due to "cardiorespiratory arrest due to severe asphyxia due to strangulation". He arrested the appellant on 15.11.2009. During the course of investigation, when the appellant was in custody, expressed his willingness to point out the spot of incident where he alleged to have committed the murder of his wife Kavita @ Jyoti. Accordingly the panchanama at the instance of the appellant thereby showing the place of incident came to be recorded. PW5 thereafter collected the necessary documents such as reports from the Chemical Analyzer and other reports and after completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baramati. (iii) The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baramati by its order dated 5.2.2010 committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, as the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the said Court. The Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant below Exhibit2A under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant in vernacular language, to which he denied and pleaded not guilty. The appellant claimed to be tried. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case, was pleased to convict the appellant for the offences charged against him as stated herein above.
(3.) Heard Mr. Arfan Sait, the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant and Mrs. A.S. Pai, the learned APP for the respondent State. We have carefully scrutinized the entire record and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that, there was no motive at all for the appellant to commit the said crime. That there was substantial time gap between the appellant last seen together in the company of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti and the finding of the dead body of the deceased in the sugarcane crop. He has further submitted that, as there is no evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the present crime, he may be acquitted by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. The learned APP for the respondentState strongly supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that, apart from the two strong circumstances i.e. motive and last seen together, the third and most significant circumstance is that the towel which was in use of the appellant was found fastened to the neck of the deceased which directly connect the appellant with the present crime. She therefore submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly and correctly passed the impugned judgment and order and there is no need to interfere with the same.;