1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3388 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 442 OF 2009 Rajendra s/o Dhoindiram Chavan ..APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Mr S.J. Salgare, Advocate holding for Smt S.S. Jadhav for the applicant; Mr V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 6th November, 2009 PER COURT : This is an application at the behest of the applicant who stands convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, by judgment dated 14.7.2009, in Sessions Case No.94 of 2008, sentencing him to imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution, deceased Shevantabai was married to the accused about 20 years prior to the incident. From the wedlock, the accused and deceased Shevantabai had two sons Umesh and Bablu and two daughters Chhaya and Maya. 2 According to the prosecution, about two years prior to the incident the applicant/accused started suspecting the fidelity of his wife Shevantabai and on that score used to often assault her. Once her hand was twisted which resulted in the fracture of the hand. Similarly he is alleged to have caused injury to the right eye also. Despite several efforts of the relatives, there was no change in the behaviour of the applicant/accused and on 13.8.2007 the applicant/accused is alleged to have assaulted Shevantabai and threatened to kill her. Shevantabai had accordingly lodged a complaint against the applicant/accused. According toi the prosecution on 29.5.2008 at about 5.00 a.m. one Vishnu Rathod rushed to the house of P.W.2 Dhondiram, father of deceased Shevantabai and informed him about a quarrel between the accused and deceased Shevantabai. They accordingly went to village Shindphal and noticed Shevantabai lying in a pool of blood. Her daughter P.W.3 Chhaya was besides her an was weeping. It is alleged that Chhaya had disclosed that the applicant had killed deceased Shevantabai. A report came to be lodged and thereafter the investigation was carried out and a charge- sheet came to be filed against the applicant. 2. The case against the accused rests on circumstantial evidence. The following circumstances, according to the prosecution, stand proved against the applicant/accused :- (i) Blood stained Muffler which was stained with blood of the group matching that of deceased; 3 (ii) Relations between the applicant/accused and his wife Shevantabai were strained; and (iii) Evidence of P.W.10 Chhaya and P.W.11 Shivaji who had seen the accused running from the scene of the offence. 3. The blood stain on the Muffler can be easily explained by the fact that the accused had gone to his house and had seen the dead body of his deceased wife. Insofar as the testimony of P.W.10 Chhaya and P.W. 11 Shivaji is concerned, both these witnesses have admitted in cross- examination that they were asked to depose so by P.W.2 Dhondiram and they have accordingly deposed as per the say of P.W.2 Dhondiram. The only circumstance, therefore, is that the relations between the accused and deceased were strained. According to us, this circumstance by itself is wholly insufficient to bring home the offence against the accused. We thus find that prima facie there was no material to justify the conviction of the applicant/accused. 4. In the result, therefore, this application is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment stands suspended and the applicant is released on bail on his furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 4 Trial Court. The Trial Court shall ensure that the proceedings are fixed for appearance of the accused once in three months and mark his attendance. 5. Application allowed as indicated above. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap3388.09