Judgment : Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. The appellant herein stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) i.d. to suffer R.I. for three years; He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five hundred only) i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year in Sessions Case No.1 of 2004 by 3nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon by Judgment and Order dated 1/12/2005. Hence, this appeal. 2. Such of the facts which are necessary for decision of the appeal are as follows : (i) The accused was married to Vansabai. Couple was working on daily wages in village Mhalde in the land of one Pardeshi. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19/9/2003 at about midnight a quarrel took place between the accused and his wife. The cause of quarrel was that Vansabai had given Rs.10/- to her husband and asked him to bring liquor. He did not obliged her, instead Rs.10 was spent elsewhere. When he returned home his wife was annoyed. Hence, he assaulted her with a piece of wood on her head, forehead and caused her homicidal death. Thereafter, the accused loaded the dead body in his bullock cart. He also carried his small baby aged about 5 months alongwith mother. He kept the small baby in dry well. In the morning the owner of the land, Ujwalsingh Pardeshi came to collect milk. He noticed bloodstains. Upon enquiry he learnt that there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife and the accused had killed his wife. Ujwalsingh Paredeshi then went to Azadnagar Police station and lodged the report and on the basis of the said report Crime No.118 of 2003 was registered at Azadnagar Police Station. Post mortem was performed on the dead body of Vansabai. The cause of death was "cardio respiratory failure due to head injury. The accused was arrested on 20/9/2003. (ii) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 20/12/2003. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.1 of 2004. (iii) The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused. 3. The cause of death was "cardio respiratory failure due to head injury. The accused was arrested on 20/9/2003. (ii) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 20/12/2003. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No.1 of 2004. (iii) The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused. 3. P.W. 1 Vimalbai More is the sister of deceased Vansabai. She has deposed before the Court that Vansabai had begotten one son and one daughter from her first marriage. Both the children were staying with P.W. 1. Vansabai was married to the accused three years prior to the incident. Vansabai had begotten one son and one daughter from the said wedlock. The son is 2 years old and the daughter was 5 months old. According to her, both the sisters visited their maternal house at about same time, so that they could stay together. Vansabai had disclosed to P.W. 1 that she was ill-treated by her husband. Vansabai had also expressed an apprehension that some day he may kill her. However, P.W. 1 thought that the quarrel was a usual affair between the husband and wife and therefore, she did not intervene. According to P.W. 1, the employer of the accused visited her and informed her that accused had killed her sister at midnight. Since it was the festival of Nagpanchami, mother of P.W. 1 was also with her. Raju Pardeshi i.e. owner of agricultural land had further informed that the accused had thrown his daughter aged 5 months in a dry well. P.W. 1 and her mother visited the spot on the next day in the morning. She has further stated that the accused was also prosecuted for killing his first wife. However, she was not aware of the Judgment of the said prosecution. It is elicited in the cross-examination that prior to her marriage with the accused Vansabai was first marked with Harshan Naik. Thereafter, she was married to Damu Naik. She was divorced by Damu. Thereafter, she was married to the accused i.e. the present appellant. P.W. 1 has given an evasive answer to the suggestion that Vansabai was in the habit of consuming alcohol. The omission is elicited in the cross-examination in respect of meeting of their sisters at their maternal home. 4. She was divorced by Damu. Thereafter, she was married to the accused i.e. the present appellant. P.W. 1 has given an evasive answer to the suggestion that Vansabai was in the habit of consuming alcohol. The omission is elicited in the cross-examination in respect of meeting of their sisters at their maternal home. 4. P.W. 2 Ukha Davre, P.W. 3 Gufran Ahmed Subhan Ahmed, P.W. 4 Rahemutta Mohd. Amin are declared hostile by the prosecution. 5. P.W. 5 Ujwalsingh Pardeshi is the employer of Aalu Ratan. He has deposed that Subhash Naik and his son Kailas were also working as his labourer. He has deposed before the Court that he has two irrigated lands and accused Aalu Ratan was working with his wife in t he land known as Varcha Mala. According to him, initially Aalu Ratan was working with him but had discontinued for some period and just two to two and half months prior to the incident he had again started working with P.W. 5. P.W. 5 has dairy business. He owns she-buffaloes and they are tied in the shed in t he land known as Vercha Mala. He used to go to his land everyday in the morning at about 7 to 7.15 a.m. for collection of milk. He has further deposed that on 19/9/2003 when he went to his land known as Vercha Mala in the morning, he opened the door of the house in order to collect fodder for the she-buffaloes. He saw blood-stains on the floor of the house. The said blood-stains were in the dwelling house of Aalu Ratan. The accused was not present at home. P.W. 5 was milching she-buffaloes. At that time, accused came home. Upon enquiry with the accused, the accused disclosed to him that there was a quarrel between himself and his wife during night hours and that he had visited the house of uncle of his wife to see her. He had also enquired with the accused about the cause of quarrel. The accused disclosed to him that his wife had given him money for bringing liquor, he did not obliged, quarrel ensued, she started bitting him and therefore, he had also bitten her and thereafter, she left his house. P.W. 5 then called brother of wife of accused Aalu Ratan. The brother disclosed that his sister had not visited his house. The accused disclosed to him that his wife had given him money for bringing liquor, he did not obliged, quarrel ensued, she started bitting him and therefore, he had also bitten her and thereafter, she left his house. P.W. 5 then called brother of wife of accused Aalu Ratan. The brother disclosed that his sister had not visited his house. P.W. 5 therefore deputed his nephew and other persons to trace Vansabai. Since it had rained on the previous night, the soil was wet and therefore, wheel mark of bullock cart was visible. They all followed the wheel mark and at a short distance from the house they saw dead body of Vansabai in the bushes. P.W. 5 then approached to Police Station and lodged the report. He proved the report which is at Exh. 18. The omission is elicited in the cross-examination to the extent that P.W. 5 had not seen the bloodstains when he opened the house for collecting fodder. He has candidly stated in the cross-examination that even prior to the incident there were quarrels between the husband and wife. He has admitted that his land mala is surrounded by the houses of the other persons. The other suggestion about falsity of his evidence on oath has been denied. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he had seen the dead body of the wife of the accused in the evening and he lodged the report immediately. He had admitted that he had no personal knowledge as to how the wife of accused has died. 6. P.W. 6 Dr.Bapu Bawiskar had performed autopsy on the dead body of Vansabai. He had noticed following injuries: 1) There was C.L.W with depressed fracture right upper eyebrow size 3 cm x 2 cm. x bone deep. 2) There was CLW. Over left canlhus of eye having size 1 + cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep. 3) There was CLW. over right high temporal region, size 6 x 2 cm. x bonedeep. 4) There was CLW. Behind left ear, size 2 x 1 cm. x bonedeep. 5) There were multiple contusions over face and neck. 6) There were multiple contusions over chest & abdomen. 7) There was contusion over right shoulder 3 x 2 cm. 8) There were 5 CLW. Anterior of both shins of leg respectively. x bonedeep. 4) There was CLW. Behind left ear, size 2 x 1 cm. x bonedeep. 5) There were multiple contusions over face and neck. 6) There were multiple contusions over chest & abdomen. 7) There was contusion over right shoulder 3 x 2 cm. 8) There were 5 CLW. Anterior of both shins of leg respectively. There were five injuries on both shins as mentioned in column Nos.17 and 18 of P.M. Report. Injuries on right shin were as under. From alovetto downword. 1) 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. 2) 1/2 cm. x 2 cm. 3) 1/2 cm. 1/2 cm. 4) 1/2 cm. 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. 5) 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. On left shin. 1) 1 x 1/2 cm. 2) 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm. 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. 4) 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. 5) 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. 9) There was contusion over right arm on middle 3rd portion, size, 3 x 2 cm. 10) There was abrasion over right palm dorsally. 11) There was fracture of left tibia & fibula and on distal 3rd portion of leg. 12) There was CLW. Over left second toe. Dorsally, with fracture of underline bone., size 1-1/2 x 1/2 cm. 13) There was small CLW. over right foot dorsally. Also 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm." All the injuries were antemortem. There was a large sub-dural heamotoma over left side frontal region, size 4 x 3 cm. and another sub-dural heamotoma over right side temporal region size 6 x 4 cm. There was brain contusion over left side frontal and right side temporal region. The post-mortem notes also show that she was carrying pregnancy of 4 to 6 weeks. The doctor has opined that internal injuries and external injuries were sufficient to cause death. The opinion is not shattered in the cross-examination. 7. P.W.7 Kailash Pawar is the co-worker of Aalu Ratan. He resides in a house adjacent to the house of the accused. According to him, on the day of incident he was at home. There was quarrel between the husband and wife. In the morning as usual the owner had come to the land. He noticed blood-stains on the floor in the house of the accused. While the owner was milching the she-buffaloes, the accused returned home. According to him, on the day of incident he was at home. There was quarrel between the husband and wife. In the morning as usual the owner had come to the land. He noticed blood-stains on the floor in the house of the accused. While the owner was milching the she-buffaloes, the accused returned home. That time, the accused told that he had thrown his wife in the thorny pushes nearby the stream. Pursuant to the information, they proceeded in the said direction and at some distance they noticed dead body of the wife of the accused and noticed injuries on her head. According to him, on the day of incident, wife of accused has given Rs.10/-to the accused and accused went outside and returned home on consuming liquor and therefore, there was a quarrel. Statement of the witnesses was recorded on the next day of incident. The omissions about the presence of the accused on the previous night is elicited in the cross-examination. He has stated before the Court that he had seen the dead body of Vansabai between 10 to 11 a.m.. Police were present there. The testimony of the witness is not challenged in the cross-examination. 8. P.W. 8 Rajaram Patil was the PSI who was attached to Azadnagar Police Station on 20/9/2003. He has deposed before the Court that on 20/9/2003 at about 9 a.m. Ujawalsingh Pardeshi had come to the police station and lodged an oral report which was reduced into writing by P.W. 8. On the basis of the said report he had registered Crime No.118 of 2003 against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He had taken investigation. They had proceeded to the land of Ujwalsingh Pardeshi. At that time, he had seen that the accused Aalu Ratan was made to sit with the other workers of Ujwalsingh Pardeshi. The accused had accompanied the police officers to the place where he had thrown the dead body of his wife. The inquest panchanama was performed on the dead body on the spot. The dead body was covered in gunny bag. There was oozing of blood in the head injury. He had noticed multiple injury on the dead body. After completion of the inquest panchanama, he had arrested the accused. P.W. 8 has further stated that there were blood-stains on the apparels of the accused. The dead body was covered in gunny bag. There was oozing of blood in the head injury. He had noticed multiple injury on the dead body. After completion of the inquest panchanama, he had arrested the accused. P.W. 8 has further stated that there were blood-stains on the apparels of the accused. He had prepared panchanama of the clothes which were worn by the accused. The panchanama is at Exh. 25. The infant child of the accused was not seen and therefore, an enquiry was made with the accused. He disclosed that he would show place where he had kept the baby. At his instance they traced the baby child in a dry well. The child was alive. In the cross-examination, P.W. 8 has categorically stated that he had taken the accused into custody from the land of the witness Ujawalsingh Pardeshi but he had not prepared arrest panchanama. It is at the most an irregularity. 9. The prosecution has proved that - (i) Deceased Vansabai was the wife of the accused/appellant. (ii) On 19/9/2003, they were in the hut situated in the land known as Varcha mala owned by P.W. 5. (iii) In the morning of 20/9/2003, wife and the child of the accused were not at home. (iv) There were blood-stains on the floor in the house occupied by the accused. (v) In the morning at about 7.30 a.m. the accused had returned home in the presence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 7. (vi) Upon enquiry, the accused had disclosed that there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. (vii) He had disclosed that he had beaten his wife. (viii) The dead body of Vansabai was traced at the instance of the accused. (ix) Vansabai had died homicidal death. The cause of death was cardio respiratory failure due to head injury. (x) Small child was also traced in a dry well at the instance of the accused. The child was abandoned in a dry well with an intention to expose it to natural calamities and hence, has attempted to commit murder of the child. (xi) The Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of the child because the child was abandoned in a dry well. (xi) The Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of the child because the child was abandoned in a dry well. However, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the child was hard five months old and was abandoned at night in a open space, that too in the rainy season and therefore, the conviction for offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code does not warrant interference. (xii) Counsel for the appellant further submits that taking the case of the prosecution as it is, it would simply be noted that the appellant had assaulted his wife in a fit of rage, in the course of sudden quarrel and that there was grave and sudden provocation by the wife. Upon perusal of the injuries noted at the time of post mortem, we feel that this submission does not hold good as she has sustained depressed fracture at right upper eyebrow which was bone deep. Injuries Nos.1 to 4 were bone deep. Thereafter there were multiple contusions on all over her body. It therefore, appears that she was battered to death, that too when she was carrying pregnancy of about 6 weeks. The fact that he had thrown the dead body in the bushes is sufficient to infer that he had caused homicidal death of his wife Vansabai and thereafter had abandoned the dead body in the bushes so as to cause disappearance of evidence. 10. In the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the conviction and sentence awarded by him do not call for any interference. 11. Before parting with the Judgment, we record our appreciation for Mr. Arfan Sait, Advocate appointed from High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay to represent the appellant. We found that he had meticulously prepared the matter and he has very ably argued the matter. We quantify legal fees to be paid to her by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.2500/-. The said fees be paid to Advocate Mr. Arfan Sait within three months from today. 12. Hence, we pass following order : ORDER (1) Appeal is dismissed. (2) Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellant is lodged and to the appellant-original accused.