Judgment : NARESH H. PATIL, J. 1. The Appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and he was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2010, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, by Judgment and order dated 20th November, 2010, for committing murder of his wife. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case unfolded from the deposition of father of the deceased Renuka, PW1 Ganpati Dake, is that the Appellant had earlier married and had divorced his wife. This was his second marriage. At the time of marriage, it was decided that father of deceased Renuka would pay Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as a dowry and 2 Tolas of Gold and spend for marriage expenses. Renuka was blessed with a daughter, during the said wedlock. After near about two years of the marriage, the accused started ill-treating the deceased on demand of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand), for purchasing a computer. On this allegation, the relatives of the Appellant were prosecuted. The charge was framed against five persons. Except Appellant, rest of the accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. 3. It is the prosecution case that on 15th December, 2009, at about 10.30 a.m., father of deceased Renuka received a phone call that the cylinder had burst in the house of Renuka and she was shifted to the hospital. The deceased was residing at Nilanga, whereas father of deceased, PW1 Ganpati, was residing at Kitta, TqBasawkalyan, DistBidar, Karnataka State. Receiving the news, parents of the deceased and other relatives rushed to Nilanga and they went to the house of Renuka. Renuka was not found in kitchen, but was found in bedroom. She was completely burnt and lying on the floor. They noticed one stove in the bedroom. Pan was found on the stove. There was one pot on the floor in which Chapati and Roti was kept. The police were also present there. According to the witness PW1, he approached the police station and lodged a complaint (Exhibit 36). She was completely burnt and lying on the floor. They noticed one stove in the bedroom. Pan was found on the stove. There was one pot on the floor in which Chapati and Roti was kept. The police were also present there. According to the witness PW1, he approached the police station and lodged a complaint (Exhibit 36). The complaint was registered at about 5.00 p.m. at Crime No.146 of 2009, under Section 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, in the Police Station by Police Inspector, Nilanga Police Station. 4. PW14 Keshav Latpate, Police Inspector, registered the crime and directed the P.S.I. Peddewad to proceed to spot, for preparing inquest panchnama. According to PW14, he was searching the accused. The present Appellant was found on the road going from Dapka Ves to Mathura Nagar. The Appellant was apprehended, arrested and brought to the Police Station. Thereafter PW14 proceeded to the place of incident. He saw the P.S.I. preparing inquest panchnama. Dead body was sent for post mortem at 5.30 p.m. after preparing inquest panchnama, to Government Hospital, Nilanga. Spot panchnama was prepared at 6.30 p.m. (Exhibit 38). The Police noticed a stove, burnt pieces of blouse of deceased, in the bedroom. PW14 seized all the articles lying in the bedroom, including a pot containing bread, pan, stove, half burnt bread on pan. The Police noticed that bedroom and walls of the bedroom had suffered blackening due to flames and smoke, but the bread in the pot and flour was not affected. 5. The Police recorded statement of five witnesses and supplementary statement of the complainant on the day of incident. On the next day, i.e. 16th December 2009, police recorded statement of two witnesses. On 17th December, 2009, statements of remaining six witnesses were recorded. Other accused persons were arrested. At the instance of the Appellant, kerosene can which was used in commission of crime and match box, were recovered. Panchnama was accordingly drawn (Exhibit 69). The said articles were kept in fodder heap. Seizure panchmana is at Exhibit 70. On 22nd December, 2009, the Police sent muddemal to Chemical Analyzer. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed on 28th December 2009, against the Appellant and other acquitted persons. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The said articles were kept in fodder heap. Seizure panchmana is at Exhibit 70. On 22nd December, 2009, the Police sent muddemal to Chemical Analyzer. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed on 28th December 2009, against the Appellant and other acquitted persons. 6. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of PW1 father of deceased, spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, post mortem report, C.A. report and the evidence of other witnesses. 7. PW1Ganpati Dake, father of deceased Renuka, deposed before the Court that there was demand of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand) from the Appellant. He narrated about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the Appellant. He admitted that at earlier point of time, before one and half year of the incident, deceased Renuka had consumed some poisonous medicines. One Yadavrao Mohite was sent to Nilanga to sort out the issue. No complaint was lodged in respect of the said incident, to the Police. The Appellant was working as a clerk of the Advocate, who was legal practitioner in the Court at Nilanga. The defence had brought omissions on the record in the evidence of this witness, in respect of the articles found in the bedroom, when he visited house of the deceased. 8. PW2 is Manoharrao Mohite. He is resident of same place, from which the PW1 belongs to. He had come along with PW1, to the house of deceased Renuka. He had supported the prosecution case in respect of articles found in the bedroom of the deceased. He is panch of spot panchnama and the inquest panchnama (Exhibit 38 and 39). He is related to PW1. 9. PW3 Shakuntala Suryawanshi is neighbourhood resident of the deceased. She was declared hostile. According to the witness, Appellant was working in the Court. In her deposition, she stated that all the accused were present in the house and she had gone to the house of the deceased after knowing the incident in question. The contradiction was brought on record by the defence, in her deposition. In cross-examination, the witness stated that on the day of incident, Appellant had gone to the Court. 10. PW4 Savita Khomane is neighbour of the deceased, but unfortunately she was also declared hostile. PW5 Shalubai Shinde, in the same fashion, was declared hostile. 11. The contradiction was brought on record by the defence, in her deposition. In cross-examination, the witness stated that on the day of incident, Appellant had gone to the Court. 10. PW4 Savita Khomane is neighbour of the deceased, but unfortunately she was also declared hostile. PW5 Shalubai Shinde, in the same fashion, was declared hostile. 11. PW6 Vinayak Kamble, is a neighbour of the deceased, who was also declared hostile. 12. PW7 is Dr. Sheshrao Shinde, who had conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He noticed that deceased suffered 100% burn injuries. According to him, he noticed following injuries: i) Burns over chest and abdomen 18% ii) Burns over back 18%, iii) Burns over right upper extremity 9%, iv) Burns over right lower extremity 18%, v) Burns over left upper extremity 9%, vi) Burns over left lower extremity 18%, vii) Burns over head, neck and face 9%, viii) Burns over private parts 1%" 13. According to the doctor, injuries were antemortem. Stomach was congested, small intestine was congested with semi digested food. According to the doctor, cause of death was "due to cardio respiratory arrest due to hypo volumic shock due to 100% burns." Postmortem report is at Exhibit 49. In the cross-examination, the doctor opined that it was possible that death of the deceased was accidental. 14. PW8 Laxmibai Dake is mother of the deceased Renuka. She has supported the prosecution case. One noticeable feature in her deposition is, that according to her, due to ill-treatment and harassment of accused persons, Renuka had consumed poison, one and half year's back prior to the incident in question. This was informed by the Appellant to her. She had come to Nilanga, convinced her daughter and thereafter left the house. She had also convinced the Appellant, but according to her, inspite of the same, ill-treatments at the hands of the Appellant, continued. About six months prior to death, Renuka phoned her to inform that she has been harassed for the demand of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand). 15. Omission is brought on record by the defence in the evidence of PW8, to the effect that Renuka had come to her house on festival. At that time she did not inform her about ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her, and about her statement made to Police that there was demand of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand). 15. Omission is brought on record by the defence in the evidence of PW8, to the effect that Renuka had come to her house on festival. At that time she did not inform her about ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her, and about her statement made to Police that there was demand of Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand). There is an omission brought on record in respect of telephonic information given by the Appellant to this witness that Renuka had consumed poisonous medicine. The mother did not lodge complaint when Renuka had consumed poisonous medicine earlier. After the said incident, the husband of the witness had gone to Dubai and he resided there for about 5 to 6 months. According to the witness, incident about consuming poison by Renuka, was not disclosed to the persons in Mathura Nagar. Some contradictions were brought on record in the evidence of this witness, in respect of her statement regarding deceased dying due to explosion of bursting of stove and articles being found in the bedroom. 16. PW9 is Vinayak Shinde, Head Constable. He is examined on seizure of plastic pot, at the instance of the Appellant. 17. PW10 is Yadavrao Mohite. Marriage of deceased was settled with the Appellant, in presence of this witness. He has supported the prosecution case. According to him, the deceased disclosed that Appellant used to beat her on account of demand of money. He tried to intervene between the couple on the earlier occasions and pacify the relations. He tried to convince the Appellant that parents of the deceased were poor. There is contradiction brought on record, in his evidence in respect of his coming to Nilanga after deceased consumed poison. 18. PW11 is Sow. Manisha Khumane. She was declared hostile. PW12 Sanjay Shirsalle was also declared hostile. 19. PW13 is Rajaram Peddewad, P.S.I. He proved the inquest panchnama, Exhibit 39. 20. PW14 is Kesahav Latpate, Police Inspector. He was Investigating Officer. He has narrated the steps taken by him during investigation. He has proved the spot panchnama, Exhibit 38. 21. The defence had examined three witnesses. Govind Salunke, legal practitioner at Nilanga was examined by the defence, as Defence Witness No.1, with whom the Appellant claimed to be working as a clerk. 22. The defence witness Shri. Govind Salunke stated in his examination in chief that he resides in Londhe Nagar, Nilanga. 21. The defence had examined three witnesses. Govind Salunke, legal practitioner at Nilanga was examined by the defence, as Defence Witness No.1, with whom the Appellant claimed to be working as a clerk. 22. The defence witness Shri. Govind Salunke stated in his examination in chief that he resides in Londhe Nagar, Nilanga. His office hours are between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and from 6.00 p.m. till completion of work. The witness stated that the Appellant was his clerk, who used to come to the office of witness, on his Luna. On 15th December, 2009 Appellant was working in the office of the witness. On the same day at about 7.00 a.m. he received phone call from the Appellant. He further deposed that at about 10.00 a.m. the Appellant was in his office. On that day, he had come to the Court at 10.45 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. along with the Appellant, his clerk. The Appellant had filed application, on the instruction of the witness, in S.C. NO.2063 of 2009, which application was signed by the witness as Advocate. The Appellant thereafter received phone call and then the Appellant left for his house, on receiving information that his wife had received burn injuries. 23. The Defence Witness No.2 is Badesab Lakkadhare. He was Sarpanch of village Kasar Shirsi, at the relevant time. He deposed that when he heard cries, he went to the house of deceased and he was told that deceased had died due to burn injuries. 24. Learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that on the same set of evidence, the other accused persons who were charged for the same offences, were acquitted for all the charges. By applying the principle of 'parity', the Appellant also needs to be acquitted. The prosecution case is based on inferences and apprehensions, which could not be treated as evidence in law. The Appellant was not present in the house when the incident took place. It was submitted that incident has taken place in the house, deceased died in the house due to burning, but the Appellant is not responsible for the said offence. The Appellant has raised plea of 'alibi'. According to the learned counsel, burden on the prosecution is still heavy and the prosecution has to discharge burden even if the defence does not probabilise its case. The Appellant has raised plea of 'alibi'. According to the learned counsel, burden on the prosecution is still heavy and the prosecution has to discharge burden even if the defence does not probabilise its case. In support of plea of 'alibi', the Appellant had examined the lawyer, with whom the Appellant was working as a clerk. The evidence of the lawyer needs to be relied upon, according to the learned counsel. In the submissions of the learned counsel, if the defence failed to establish innocence or probabilise the defence taken, the adverse inference cannot be drawn against him. There is no specific denial on behalf of the defence that the spot of the incident was tried to be shifted and a show was putup that the incident had taken place in the bedroom. The learned counsel submitted that taking the case in its entirety, all the circumstances connected together, are not sufficient enough to hold the Appellant guilty. 25. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the following reported cases: (1) Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., A.I.R. 2004 S.C., 4383, (2) Narendra Singh and another vs. State of M.P., A.I.R. 2004 S.C., 3249. 26. The learned A.P.P. submitted that it is a clear case of harassing a woman, married just before few years, blessed with a small daughter of hardly about two years old. It is a case where a woman was mercilessly killed by pouring kerosene on her person, due to which her body was completed charred. The dead body of the deceased was lying on the floor, unattended. The Appellant being husband of deceased Renuka, was duty bound to take care of his wife. It is a custodial death, therefore, the Appellant cannot plead any mercy or leniency, just by raising a plea that in the facts of the present case, the prosecution is required to establish case by leading some more evidence or bring on record some more circumstances as desired by the defence. Spot panchnama and inquest panchnama are proved, which elaborately explain the situation in the house. The Appellant had deliberately tried to screen himself from the offence. The Appellant tried to shift the spot of incident. Spot panchnama and inquest panchnama are proved, which elaborately explain the situation in the house. The Appellant had deliberately tried to screen himself from the offence. The Appellant tried to shift the spot of incident. The Appellant brought stove, kept the pan on it and other articles in the bedroom after the incident of burning was over, to putup a show that incident took place in the bedroom. This itself shows guilt of the Appellant. Incriminating articles were recovered at the instance of the Appellant. Clothes of the deceased were smelling of kerosene. The Appellant never tried to save his wife. The Appellant was caught on the road, on the complaint made by father of the deceased. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant did not take plea of alibi, neither had given any explanation. The omissions and contradictions brought in the evidence of prosecution, are not so material to dislodge the prosecution case. There are incriminating circumstances, which conclusively establish that Appellant was present in the house and in absence of any explanation, coupled with other circumstances, it should be safely held that Appellant must be the culprit of such a heinous offence. 27. We have gone through the entire evidence, the original record, postmortem report, C.A. report and the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. We have perused the reported Judgments cited before us. 28. The evidence of parents of the deceased is clear on the point that deceased was being harassed by the Appellant. She had continuously made complaints about harassment to her parents. Once they tried to pacify the relations between the couple. It has come on record that the Appellant was working as a clerk of the Advocate. No sooner the message was received by the parents, they rushed to the house of the deceased and found deceased lying in the bedroom, on the floor. There was nobody in the house. The body of the deceased was completely charred, burnt. Doctor opined that deceased suffered 100% burn injuries. The parents could see stove, pan, piece of bread (chapati) unaffected by the smoke, kept there. When the entire room was affected due to smoke and flames, but these articles kept there, were absolutely safe and clean. There was nobody in the house. The body of the deceased was completely charred, burnt. Doctor opined that deceased suffered 100% burn injuries. The parents could see stove, pan, piece of bread (chapati) unaffected by the smoke, kept there. When the entire room was affected due to smoke and flames, but these articles kept there, were absolutely safe and clean. This itself demonstrates that the Appellant had tried to screen himself and tried to extinguish the evidence and misdirect the investigating agency that the incident must have happened in the bedroom and not at any other place. 29. The Police started investigation, drew spot panchnama and inquest panchnama. The Panchnamas were duly proved, they support the prosecution case. The Police seized clothes of the deceased which were smelling of kerosene. The articles like kerosene can and match box were seized at the instance of the Appellant. The Appellant though claims to have received telephonic message in the Court, that his wife received burn injuries, but according to the Police, the Appellant was apprehended and arrested while he was on the road. 30. This was a case where the Appellant ought to have explained the circumstances while his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. But he kept silence. His silence, in the facts of the case, is speaking. In fact the Appellant tried to raise plea of 'alibi', but not in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Appellant had examined a lawyer with whom he claimed to be working as a clerk, to establish his plea of 'alibi'. Burden on the Appellant was heavy to establish the plea of 'alibi' which he raised. In the facts of the case, considering evidence of the defence witness, and the conduct of the Appellant, we are not fully convinced to accept the argument of the defence that Appellant was not in the house when the incident in question took place. 31. The chain of circumstances connected together and looked into minutely, unhesitantly points out that the Appellant must be the culprit, he was present in the house and he was the cause for deceased suffering burn injuries. The spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, location of the house, the articles found in the house, rule out case of accidental death. 31. The chain of circumstances connected together and looked into minutely, unhesitantly points out that the Appellant must be the culprit, he was present in the house and he was the cause for deceased suffering burn injuries. The spot panchnama, inquest panchnama, location of the house, the articles found in the house, rule out case of accidental death. The defence had also suggested that deceased had suicidal tendency, in the sense, that one and half year's prior to the incident in question, the deceased consumed poisonous medicine. But only on this circumstance, it would be unsafe to hold that deceased committed suicide. Even for the sake of argument if it is assumed that deceased committed suicide, then it is very difficult for a person like deceased to be sitting quiet in the bedroom, on the floor, getting burnt herself, suffering 100% burn injuries, without a murmur, without a shout, without trying to save herself, without rushing outside the house, or not behaving in such a manner in which, in normal circumstance, a person though committing suicide, would have behaved. We do not notice any such symptoms in the conduct of the deceased. We are therefore, not convinced to accept this theory of the defence too. 32. The evidence of the parents of the deceased and the hostile witnesses, indicate that the Appellant was there in the house. Though a witness had stated that Appellant had gone to the Court, but there is no such evidence to establish that at relevant time the Appellant was not in the house. The evidence of the hostile witness cannot be totally discarded. This is an important circumstance, connecting the Appellant with the crime. Father of the deceased lodged complaint promptly. There is no allegation that it was manipulated, thought over, and thereafter the Appellant was tried to be booked in a false complaint. The Police, in fact, could have moved the wheels of the investigation more faster than what was seen in this case. We are disturbed to see that the Police had lost more time to conduct spot panchnamas and start investigation promptly and diligently no sooner they received information of happening of such a incident. But still, this would not give any benefit to the defence, in the light of the evidence brought on record. We are disturbed to see that the Police had lost more time to conduct spot panchnamas and start investigation promptly and diligently no sooner they received information of happening of such a incident. But still, this would not give any benefit to the defence, in the light of the evidence brought on record. The Chemical Analyzer's report, Exhibit 30, indicates that piece of blouse of the deceased, in burnt condition, was smelling of kerosene. 33. The plea of the defence is that as the rest of the accused persons who were charged for the same offences, were acquitted for all the charges, on the same set of evidence and on the principle of 'parity', the Appellant be given benefit. In the facts of the case, evidence brought on record, we are not convinced to accept the argument of the defence. We reject this contention of the defence. There is no merit in the Appeal. ORDER Appeal is dismissed.