JUDGMENT A.I.S. Cheema, J. 1. The appellant is the original sole accused, convicted by the judgment and order dated 6.1.2012, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2011. He has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, it has been directed that he should suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. CASE OF PROSECUTION 2. In short the case of prosecution is that, the appellant (hereinatfter referred to as the accused), was married to the victim Padmabai about 20 years before the incident which took place in the night between 21.2.2011 – 22.2.2011 at Aarli, Taluka and District Adilabad. The couple has a daughter Divyalata, aged about 17 years. There used to be quarrels between the couple and leaving Padmabai (hereinafter referred to as the victim) and the daughter, the accused had gone away. Consequently, the brothers of the victim namely complainant Laxman Narayan Golamwar, P.W.10 Ramanna Golamwar and other brother Santosh brought the victim and Divyalata to Madnapur and the victim with daughter were residing at Madnapur in a small room constructed with tin sheets. However, about one year before the incident accused came to Madnapur and assured the victim and her brothers that he will reside properly and started residing with the victim and Divyalata. On 21.2.2011, when the victim had gone along with her sister-in-law P.W.9 Kavita, to the field of Santosh to labour on the field, the accused had gone there and quarreled with the victim, asking for money. In the evening, P.W.10 Ramanna had called the couple and made accused understand and thereafter the accused and victim went home which is near the house of the other brother Santosh. After the couple went home, Divyalata went to sleep at the place of her maternal uncle Santosh, as usual. In the morning when Divyalata went back to her house, she found that the same was closed by chain from outside. Inside she found her mother lying on bed with a quilt made from sari on her face. When the quilt was removed, Divyalata found the victim to be dead and she appeared to have been strangulated. Divyalata started crying and shouting, attracting people. Inside she found her mother lying on bed with a quilt made from sari on her face. When the quilt was removed, Divyalata found the victim to be dead and she appeared to have been strangulated. Divyalata started crying and shouting, attracting people. The accused was absconding from the spot. The incident occurred in the night some time between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. Complainant Laxman Narayan Golamwar then went from Madnapur to Sindkhed Police Station, which is about 15 Kms. away and at about 11.05 a.m., Crime No. 5 of 2011 came to be registered by P.W.12 A.P.I. Babarao Chavan. 3. P.S.I. P.W.13 Pundlik Khude investigated the offence. He went and did inquest panchanama in the house (which is small room) of the victim, on the same day of 22.2.2011 between 11.45 – 12.45 Hrs. The spot panchanama was done between 12.30 to 13.00 Hrs. and the victim was sent for post mortem to Medical Officer, P.W.4 Dr. Anil Waghmare, who carried out the post mortem on the same day between 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The post mortem report concluded that the death was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia. On the same day of 22.2.2011 clothes of the victim were seized vide another panchanama. The accused had run away to Adilabad and the investigating officer P.W.13 Pundlik brought him and he was arrested. C.A. report was obtained which showed that in the vicera no poison was found. On completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahur and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. for short) was recorded. His defence is of denial as well as alibi. The accused came to be convicted as mentioned above and hence the present appeal. ARGUMENTS 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C. for short) was recorded. His defence is of denial as well as alibi. The accused came to be convicted as mentioned above and hence the present appeal. ARGUMENTS 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The appeal raises grounds and the counsel for appellant has also argued that the present conviction is on the basis of circumstantial evidence of last seen together; that there is no eye witness of the accused committing the crime; there is no clear evidence of the accused being with the victim in the night concerned and the fact of accused absconding is a weak piece of evidence. It is also argued that, motive to commit murder has not been established. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued, referring to the evidence on record that, there is clear evidence of witnesses and specially the daughter of the couple namely P.W.11 Divyalata, which shows that in the night after the couple came back home, she had gone to sleep at the place of her maternal uncle Santosh as usual and in the morning at 6.00 a.m. when she went back home, she found her mother to have been killed and the father absconding. As per the Additional Public Prosecutor, there is evidence of earlier quarrels between the couple and also on 21.2.2011 and thus, the prosecution has duly established the case. SOME FACTS NOT DISPUTED 6. We have, with the assistance of counsel for both sides, gone through the oral and documentary evidence as available on record. P.W.1 Laxman Narayan Golamwar is the complainant and brother of the victim. P.W.9 Kavita is the sister-in-law of the victim. Kavita is wife of Santosh, the other brother of the victim. P.W.10 Ramanna is brother of the victim. Divyalata, daughter of the couple has deposed as P.W.11. When the evidence of all these witnesses is examined, what clearly comes on record and regarding which there does not appear to be much challenge, are the facts that the victim and accused got married about 20 years back and earlier were residing at Aarli. After marriage, there were some quarrels and accused had left the victim and daughter and gone away to Madhya Pradesh. After marriage, there were some quarrels and accused had left the victim and daughter and gone away to Madhya Pradesh. The brothers brought the victim and Divyalata to Madnapur and the victim had made a small room for herself near the house of her brother Santosh and was staying there with Divyalata. The brothers were residing in separate houses in the same village. The evidence is that, about one year back accused came back to the victim and daughter Divyalata and desired to stay together with the victim as well as Divyalata. He appears to have convinced her brothers that he will maintain the victim properly and thus, they started residing together again. The accused and victim were both labourers. EARLIER CONDUCT OF ACCUSED 7. Regarding earlier conduct of accused, there is evidence of P.Ws.1, 9 and 10. To refer specifically, the evidence of P.W.11 Divyalata can be seen. She has deposed that when they were staying at Aarli, Adilabad, there used to be quarrels between her parents. Her evidence is that, the accused used to demand money from her mother and used to give threats of killing and after assaulting her mother, he had gone away to Madhya Pradesh and as they had no shelter, her uncles Santosh and Ramanna brought them to Madnapur and they were residing in a tin shed in front of the house of Santosh. P.W.11 has deposed that, one year back when her father came back, he told her mother that he will not leave them and started residing at Madnapur. Her evidence is that, her father (accused) resided properly for 2-3 months, but thereafter again started quarrelling with her mother (victim). She has deposed that, even she was doing labour work with her mother, but her father used to keep demanding money and had told that if she will not give money, one day he will kill her. INCIDENTS DATED 21.2.2011 DAY PRIOR TO NIGHT OF INCIDENT AND MOTIVE 8. Now coming to the specific events which took place on 21.2.2011, there is evidence of P.W.1 Laxman, P.W.9 Kavita, P.W.10 Ramanna and P.W.11 Divyalata. Evidence of P.W.9 Kavita is direct evidence regarding the quarrel which took place at the field of Santosh. P.W.9 has deposed that, at the time of death, the victim was residing at Madnapur in their premises by building a shed. Evidence of P.W.9 Kavita is direct evidence regarding the quarrel which took place at the field of Santosh. P.W.9 has deposed that, at the time of death, the victim was residing at Madnapur in their premises by building a shed. She deposed that, the accused was residing with the victim. The victim was doing labour work and on the day of incident, she had come for work in their land (i.e. the land of Santosh). P.W.9 Kavita has deposed that she and Kantabai were there in the field and the accused came at about 1.30 p.m. and started demanding money from the victim. The victim told him that she had no money and thus, there was quarrel between them. Then the accused went away. The ladies returned home at about 6.00 p.m. P.W.9 Kavita has deposed that, she informed this fact of quarrel to her husband and the in-laws and thereafter her brother-in-law Ramanna had called for the couple to his house. If the evidence of P.W.10 Ramanna is perused, he has deposed that, on the day of incident, the victim had gone to the land of Santosh to collect cotton along with Kantabai and P.W.9 Kavitabai. His evidence is that, P.W.9 Kavitabai informed him regarding the quarrel which took place at the field between the couple. He says that, he then called for the couple to his house and asked them about the cause of quarrel and gave them understanding and according to him, thereafter both of them returned home at about 9.00 p.m. P.W.1 Laxman has also deposed that, on 21.2.2011 with reference to the quarrel of accused and victim at the field of Santosh, he had also given understanding to them. There is evidence of P.W.11 Divyalata that on 21.2.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. when her parents returned home, her mother informed her about their quarrel at the field and that the accused was demanding money to her mother. Her evidence is that, her maternal uncle Ramanna then called her parents and that Ramanna (P.W.10) had given understanding to both of them. She has deposed that, thereafter her parents returned home at about 9.00 p.m. and then she had gone to the house of her uncle Santosh for sleeping as usual. 9. Her evidence is that, her maternal uncle Ramanna then called her parents and that Ramanna (P.W.10) had given understanding to both of them. She has deposed that, thereafter her parents returned home at about 9.00 p.m. and then she had gone to the house of her uncle Santosh for sleeping as usual. 9. The above evidence clearly discloses incident of quarrel taking place in the day time of 21.2.2011 where the accused was demanding money from his wife (the victim) and was raising quarrels regarding the same. The evidence also shows that the brothers/ complainant Laxman and P.W.10 Ramanna had given understanding to the accused regarding the quarrel. Looking to the evidence as to how the couple had lived earlier at Aarli and there also there used to be quarrels between the couple, and the accused left his daughter and wife and went away to Madhya Pradesh and now at Madnapur, after initially living properly for some time, accused again started the quarrel, but found the brothers intervening, it appears, he must be upset. The victim complained about him to teen-aged daughter also at home. As such, on 21.2.2011, the accused found himself isolated as his wife had now support from her brothers and daughter. Thus, there must be anger and motive was clearly there to teach wife a lesson. LAST SEEN TOGETHER 10. As regards last seen together, there is evidence of P.W.1 Laxman to the effect that, after the quarrel dated 21.2.2011, he had given understanding to the couple and thereafter the accused and victim had proceeded to their house. Then there is evidence of P.W.10 Ramanna also which is similar. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused argued that, this evidence does not go to establish that after these brothers made the couple understand, the couple did reach home. However, there is evidence of P.W.1 Divyalata. Her evidence in para 3 clearly shows that, in the evening, after her parents came home, she came to know about the quarrel, and then her parents were called by her maternal uncle Ramanna to give them understanding and thereafter her parents came home at 9.00 p.m. and then she went in the house of her uncle to sleep as usual. Thus, the evidence is quite clear that this daughter of the couple left them in the house at about 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, the mother was not seen alive and was found dead at 6.00 a.m. when P.W.1 Divyalata went back home after sleeping at the place of her uncle Santosh. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the cross-examination of P.W.1 Divyalata to say that initially she admitted in the cross-examination that she had not gone with her parents to the house of Ramanna on 21.2.2011 and that she was at the house of Santosh when they returned. However, the further cross-examination cleared the confusion as she has further deposed that, only after return of her parents from the house of Ramanna she had gone to the house of Santosh. Thus, in spite of cross-examination on this point, circumstance is clearly proved that in the earlier night P.W.11 Divyalata left her parents at the house and had gone to the place of her uncle to sleep as usual and in the morning she found her mother dead and the father missing. In fact, even the evidence of P.W.1 Laxman and P.W.10 Ramanna is good enough to show that the couple was last seen together going home. 11. P.W.1 Divyalata has further deposed that, on 22.2.2011 in the morning at about 6.00 a.m. she woke up and went to her house and found that the house door has been chained from outside. She opened the chain and opened the house and found her mother sleeping in the cot. She called out to her. There was quilt on the body of her mother. She noticed nail marks on the neck of her mother and blood was coming from her eyes. She deposed that, she came out weeping and her uncle and people gathered and it was found that her mother had died. On this count, P.W.1 Divyalata is supported by P.W.1 Laxman as well as P.W.9 Kavita and P.W.10 Ramanna, who have all deposed that, in the early morning when P.W.1 Divyalata went home, she found her mother dead and started crying and shouting. Further, there is independent evidence of P.W.8 Balaji, who is Sarpanch, and at the relevant time was President of Tanta Mukti Samiti in the village. Further, there is independent evidence of P.W.8 Balaji, who is Sarpanch, and at the relevant time was President of Tanta Mukti Samiti in the village. Even this person has deposed that the accused was residing with the victim at Madnapur in the home where earlier the victim and her daughter were residing. His evidence is also that, since before the victim and daughter were residing there and about one year before incident, the accused came and started residing there with the daughter and wife. This witness deposed that, on 22.2.2011 at about 6.00 a.m., he learnt about the death of Padmabai (the victim) and went to her house. People had gathered and he entered the house and saw the dead body of the victim. There was quilt on her person and blood was coming out from her eyes. There were nail marks on her neck. Like other witnesses, even this witness deposed that the accused was absconding from the spot. P.W.1 Divyalata has deposed that the accused killed her mother. 12. Evidence of P.W.1 Laxman Narayan Golamwar is that he then went to the Police Station and filed F.I.R. (Exhibit 9). P.W.12 A.P.I. Babarao has deposed about P.W.1 coming and filing the F.I.R. The F.I.R. gives necessary details regarding the marriage about 20 years back and how the accused used to quarrel with his wife while at Aarli and had left them and gone away, and how the brothers brought the victim and her daughter and the victim built a small house and was living there with her daughter. The F.I.R. refers to the incident dated 21.2.2011 and how the couple went and slept in the home and in the morning Divyalata found her mother dead and accused absconding. INVESTIGATION 13. The evidence of P.W.13 Investigating Officer Pundlik Khude shows that, for the purpose of investigation, he called P.W.2 Digambar and P.W.6 Prakash for preparing spot panchanama (Exhibit 11). It was a small hut having tin sheets and from the spot the quilt made from sari was found and seized. The quilt had been used to strangulate the victim. P.W.13 Pundlik Khude has also recorded inquest panchanama with P.W.3 Shashikala and P.W.5 Kishan as panchas. The inquest panchanama (Exhibit 13) also records that the death appeared to be due to pressing of neck and there were nail marks on the neck of the victim. The quilt had been used to strangulate the victim. P.W.13 Pundlik Khude has also recorded inquest panchanama with P.W.3 Shashikala and P.W.5 Kishan as panchas. The inquest panchanama (Exhibit 13) also records that the death appeared to be due to pressing of neck and there were nail marks on the neck of the victim. Exhibit 20 is the panchanama of seizure of clothes of the victim regarding which there is evidence of P.W.7 Omprakash Tanmane and P.W.13 Investigating Officer P.S.I. Pundlik Khude. CULPABLE HOMICIDE 14. P.W.4 is Dr. Anil Waghmare. He did post mortem of the victim on 22.2.2011 between 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. The post mortem report is at Exhibit 15, which has been proved by this witness. Interalia, the report shows that, there was conjunctival haemorrhage on both eyes and there was profession of eye ball and blood was oozing from both the eyes. The tongue was in oral cavity. P.W.4 has deposed and post mortem report shows in Column No.17, that there were bruises present on the front and back of neck up to right side of clavicle. There was abrasion to the left side chin bone. As per the post mortem report, there was haemorrhage found over brain. The doctor opined that the cause of death was “Death due to cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia”. In the cross-examination of Doctor, he was asked and he stated that, the injuries in Column No.17 were possible on account of scratches. In the cross-examination of P.W.1 Laxman, it was suggested to him that the victim had died on account of heart attack. However, no such suggestion was put up to the doctor, whose evidence is that, the respiratory arrest was due to asphyxia. Then it was suggested to P.W.9 Kavita in the cross-examination that, if the cotton crop is rubbed, it leaves marks. P.W.9 Kavita, however, denied that the victim had sustained cotton crop rub injuries. Although such suggestions were put to this witness, no such suggestions were put up to the doctor P.W.4 Dr. Anil. Even otherwise, the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 13) shows that the victim was of a height of 5 ft. By sheer common sense and observations, one would know that cotton crop does not rise to such height so as to leave scratch marks to the neck and chin of the victim. Anil. Even otherwise, the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 13) shows that the victim was of a height of 5 ft. By sheer common sense and observations, one would know that cotton crop does not rise to such height so as to leave scratch marks to the neck and chin of the victim. A person going to pluck cotton is not likely to have cotton crop rub injury to neck or chin just because of the plucking. Thus, the defence on this count trying to explain the injuries on the person of victim has no substance. MURDER 15. The above discussion clearly shows that the victim died due to culpable homicide. The evidence clearly shows that, in the night concerned, the accused and victim had gone to sleep at their small house at Madnapur and the accused was present there. In the morning, the accused was absconding from the spot and the victim was found dead due to strangulation. There was motive as the wife was not giving money to the accused which was being demanded by him and earlier in the day time there was quarrel and there must be anger due to the brothers of the victim interfering. The circumstances unerringly prove that accused murdered the victim. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Sharad S/o Kondiba Walke vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 899 to argue that, where the evidence is of circumstantial nature, it is necessary to fully establish all the facts so as to be consistent only with one hypothesis which is of the guilt of the accused. We have gone through the facts of that matter. Para No. 26 of the said judgment shows that, in that matter, the prosecution had failed to establish the very presence of the appellant therein in the house during the intervening night concerned by any cogent evidence and thus, this Court had refused to invoke Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present matter, however, there is clear evidence of P.W.1 Laxman regarding the couple proceeding home after he had made them understand and there is also evidence of P.W.10 Ramanna that he had called the couple to his home and made them understand and then they had proceeded home. In the present matter, however, there is clear evidence of P.W.1 Laxman regarding the couple proceeding home after he had made them understand and there is also evidence of P.W.10 Ramanna that he had called the couple to his home and made them understand and then they had proceeded home. Then there is specific evidence of P.W.1 Divyalata, the daughter, stating that she left her parents at home at about 9.00 p.m. and in the morning, found her mother dead and accused absconding. There is no reason at all why this daughter should speak against her own father. Her evidence fairly shows that when her father came back to them at Madnapur, for about 2-3 months the father was residing properly. Thus, this daughter also needs her father, but has not supported him when she found him subsequently quarrelling with her mother and being responsible for the death of her mother. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are reliable and the evidence is accepted as true. 17. The prosecution established primarily the nexus between the appellant and the crime with which the appellant is charged. The facts and circumstances proved clearly show that the death of the victim was within special knowledge of the appellant-accused. After prosecution established facts and circumstances discussed above, under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the onus was on the appellant-accused to explain the circumstances leading to the death of victim in the night when she was with the appellant-accused. The accused has not discharged the burden which was on him. 18. P.W.1 was suggested in the cross-examination that the accused had landed property at Aarli and had sold the same for the marriage of Divyalata. He denied the suggestion that they were demanding the said amount from the accused. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. the accused has stated that, the complainant and the other brother Santosh had demanded money to him for the marriage of daughter Divyalata, but he had told them that he will perform the same himself. Thus, even the accused is not saying that uncles of Divyalata wanted the money for themselves. There is no substance in the defence taken by the accused, of denial as well as alibi. He has not brought any material to show that he was not present in the house concerned in the face of evidence of witnesses discussed above. Thus, even the accused is not saying that uncles of Divyalata wanted the money for themselves. There is no substance in the defence taken by the accused, of denial as well as alibi. He has not brought any material to show that he was not present in the house concerned in the face of evidence of witnesses discussed above. 19. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court has in detail examined the oral and documentary evidence and rightly come to the conclusion that the accused has committed murder of his wife Padmabai. On independent examination of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we find that the circumstances discussed above are cogently and firmly establish and they unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain which is complete and which shows that the accused only committed the offence. 20. For the above reasons, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on appellant is confirmed and the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. We quantity Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) as fees and expenses of the Advocate Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi (appointed) to represent the appellant/accused.