1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1437/2003 Bhagwan Keshav Patil, Residing at Vedhi Talaopada, Post Virathan Budruk, Taluka Palghar,Dist.Thane, At present at Central Prison, Kolhapur. APPELLANT/ACCUSED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA At the instance of Safale Police Station RESPONDENT Through Jail-Ms.Pooja Bhojane Advocate appointed Mr.H.J.Dedhia ,APP for State CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. RESERVED ON : 5th JANUARY,2010. PRONOUNCED ON:20th JANUARY,2010. J U D G M E N T (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J ) . The appellant- accused is convicted for the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous 2 imprisonment for three months. The accused ,therefore, has filed this appeal challenging the said order of conviction dated 10/12/2002 passed by I Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar. 2] The prosecution case must be shortly stated. The incident has taken place on 16/11/2000 at 18.00 hrs.at the residence of the deceased. The appellant/accused is husband of deceased Surekha . The couple had 10 years married life prior to the date of incident . The accused was addicted to liquor and at the relevant time he was not working and used to harass his wife i.e.deceased Surekha who was the sole bread winner of the family and used to demand money from her. Thus, the quarrels between husband and wife was a routine affair. 15 days prior to the date of the incident deceased Surekha left her house and started residing with her mother , prosecution witness no.1 , Kusum. On 16/11/2000 the accused went to the work place of Surekha and brought her to their residence. However,he quarreled and assaulted her in the field on their way to the residence. She was badly 3 beaten up by him . He again assaulted her in the house. At night deceased Surekha did not return to her mother’s house and on the next day afternoon,Vaishali the sister of the accused, prosecution witness No.6 , noticed Surekha in sleeping condition in the house of the accused . Blood was oozing from her nose and mouth . So she informed her aunt, Jankibai , prosecution witness no.8 , and then they informed about the incident to the complainant, who gave complaint to the police station and crime was registered at Safale Police Station bearing C.R.No.31/2000 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 3] The charge was framed against the accused for the offence of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was tried and the trial ended in conviction. 4] Learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that there is no eye witness to the incident and the learned Judge ought to have considered the background of the property dispute between the accused andhis brother 4 who were residing close by. She has further submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 Vaishali suffers from major improvement on the point of extra judicial confession of the accused that in the morning he had committed murder of his wife. She has further submitted that prosecution witness no.7 , panch on inquest panchanama, prosecution witness no.8, aunt of the accused, prosecution witness no. 9 , panch on the panchanama of seizure of clothes of the deceased , prosecution witness no.10 , panch witness on the point of seizure of the clothes of the accused , did not support the case of the prosecution. She has further pointed out that the clothes of the accused were seized six days after his arrest and sent on 5/12/2000 to the Chemical Analyser .Thus, it is clear that the clothes were not immediately sent to the Chemical Analyser. The report of the Chemical Analyser was received after seven months i.e. on 6/7/2001 . Under such circumstances hardly any importance can be given to the report of Chemical Analyser. 5] Learned A.P.P.has submitted that there is 5 sufficient evidence against the accused and it is a fit case for the conviction. Learned A.P.P.pointed out the multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and submitted that the accused has brutally committed murder of his wife by beating her with forceful blows, kicks and hitting/striking her body against the ground. 6] The case stands on the circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the incident. However, there is evidence of last seen together. The relationship of the accused and the deceased as husband and wife has much bearing on the circumstances of last seen together and finding the body of the deceased wife in their residence. The history in respect of the relationship between the accused and deceased is brought on record through the mother of the deceased and sisters of the accused- prosecution witness nos.3 and 6.There were constant fights between them and the only cause of the quarrel/discord was the addiction and demand of money by the accused. Extra judicial confession of the accused to prosecution witness no.3,Rajashree, is an admitted improvement hence 6 it is rightly discarded by the Judge. However,the Judge has correctly relied on the evidence of prosecution witness no.3 and 6, Rajashree and Vaishali, that they had heard shouts and screams of deceased Surekha on that fateful night from her house. Vaishali found Surekha dead on the next day in the afternoon in her house. 7] If spouse is an accused , then the conduct of the accused is a very material circumstance. If a wife is injured or found dead, then husband is bound to give a call for help or rush to the police station and lodge a complaint about such incident or shall approach the doctor for medical treatment. An omission of such natural expected reactions and actions itself constitutes an incriminating circumstance. Evidence on the post incident conduct of the accused can be assessed on the basis of the evidence of the other witnesses who threw light on the post death behavioural pattern of the accused. In the present case learned defence counsel has submitted that the accused was having hostile relations with his brother Raju and complainant , prosecution witness no.1, mother of the 7 deceased has given admission that she has not seen the incident of murder and she has lodged complaint on the basis of the information furnished by the brother Raju. Such mere suggestions cannot come to the rescue of the accused especially on the background of the cogent evidence of the witnesses, circumstances, and the medical evidence. No weapon was used in killing the deceased, but she was subjected to multiple fist blows, kicks and was hit/dashed against the hard object resulting her death. 8] We do not find any error in appreciation of the evidence in the judgment of Sessions Judge . The accused has pleaded defence of alibi that he at the time of the incident has gone to the work in the factory. However, this defence of alibi could not stand on mere suggestions . 9] Learned defence counsel has submitted that the appellant/accused was arrested immediately after the incident and he is in the prison since then and hence he be given set off of the period to that extent. 8 10] The accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been awarded imprisonment for life . Sentence cannot be reduced to sentence undergone by the accused. The appeal stands dismissed. (SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J)