- (1.)THE appellant was tried for the murder of his wife under Sections 302, 498a and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the charges, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also for subjecting the deceased to cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to be hanged till death for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition he was also sentenced to undergo three years R. I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default, R. I. for one year under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The period of detention in custody during trial was set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has forwarded the record to this Court for confirmation of sentence of death in terms of Section 366, Cr. P. C. The appellant has filed appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.
(2.)THE prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was solemnized in the year 1994. The appellant was serving as Police Constable in Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur. It is the prosecution case that the appellant used to ask his wife Pushpa to bring money from her parents for purchase of plot and on account of that there used to be quarrel and the appellant also used to beat her. On 24. 2. 2001, between 9. 00 to 10. 00 a. m. , there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased Pushpa. The appellant is said to have strangulated the deceased with gamcha, and made a show that she had become unconscious. The deceased was taken to the hospital by neighbours and she was pronounced dead. The prosecution has examined three witnesses to prove the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code namely Brijeshsingh (P. W. 1) who is the brother of the deceased, Sangita (P. W. 5), who is the wife of Brijeshsingh (P. W. 1) and maid servant Savitri who was working in the house of appellant and deceased. In order to prove the charge of murder, besides the said three witnesses, the prosecution has also examined Prashant Bhangade (P. W. 3) and Vishal Kamble (P. W. 11) and Dr. A. A. Mukherjee (P. W. 9 ). The prosecution also relies upon recovery of gamcha at the instance of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Panchas of said recovery have not supported the prosecution case but the recovery is sought to be proved through the Investigating Officer. The appellant, in his written statement filed after examination under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , has denied to have either beaten or ill-treated the deceased. According to him, on the previous night of the incident there was an altercation between them and they stopped talking with each other. The altercation was on the question that deceased Pushpa wanted to go out of station. In the morning, Pushpa got ready for going out but the appellant refused. He slept on diwan in the front room. Some time in the morning, Prashant and Vishal came to his house. Prashant went away from outside itself whereas Vishal came and sat on the chair besides diwan. While Vishal was sitting in the front room, he went inside for urination. When he returned within half minute, he saw that Pushpa had strangulated herself by tying on Odhani (a cloth to be thrown overhead and shoulders) to the window in sitting position. He called Vishal and both of them untied and laid her. He asked Vishal to inform neighbours and bring a doctor and in the meantime, he started making Pushp conscious. She was taken to the hospital. He asked Vishal to take him to his father in Ashok Nagar on scooter. On the way, brother of appellant met who told them that his father was coming. He asked Vishal to take him to Brijeshsingh at Silewara, but he refused. He dropped him near the square. He started going to the hospital, but he was mentally disturbed and got amiss. He was not able to understand where he was moving and while he was sitting under a tree at about noon time, the police caught him. Brijeshsingh who was in the Police Station, threatened to implicate him in the case. According to the appellant, police and Brijeshsingh have levelled false charge against him for strangulating Pushpa with Dupatta (long scarf ). He also stated that Pushpa was giving money to her sister-in-law. He placed on record sick note and X-ray report and contended that a rod is inserted in his hand and it has been rendered feeble. We shall refer to the answers given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. at a later stage which will go to show that the written statement filed by him is to large extent contrary to the stand taken by him under Section 313 of Cr. P. C.
(3.)LEARNED Advocate Mr. M. R. Daga, argued on behalf of the appellant and learned A. P. P. Mr. D. B. Patel argued on behalf of the State.