JUDGMENT (Per A.S. GADKARI, J.): 1. The appellant, original accused, has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence by the present appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 30th January 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months. The learned Trial court has acquitted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts which can be enumerated from the record, may briefly be stated thus: (i) PW3 Smt. Kasturabai Ram Pawar was the sister of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti Ramesh Rathod. The appellant is the husband of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. The complainant and the family of the appellant originally hail from the State of Karnataka. They had been to Malegaon Cooperative Sugar Factory, Shivnagar, TalukaBaramati for doing the labour work. The complainant Smt. Kasturabai and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti along with her husband i.e. the appellant were staying in the neighbouring houses. On 13.11.2009, the complainant Smt. Kasturabai came from her work at about 8 p.m. and enquired about Kavita @ Jyoti and the appellant who were suppose to join their work in the factory at about 8 p.m. On enquiry, she came to know that Kavita @ Jyoti with her husband i.e. the appellant herein had gone to the forest to collect fuel wood at about 4 p.m. on the said day, however they did not return till that time. The complainant saw the small kids of Kavita @ Jyoti were weeping in the house. She served food to them and children slept there. The complainant and the other persons tried to search Kavita @ Jyoti and the appellant, however, they were not found. That on 14.11.2009 while the complainant Smt. Kasturabai and others were taking the search of Kavita @ Jyoti, they came to know that the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti was lying in the sugarcane crop of one Bhapkar and the murder had been committed by strangulation by use of a towel. That on 14.11.2009 while the complainant Smt. Kasturabai and others were taking the search of Kavita @ Jyoti, they came to know that the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti was lying in the sugarcane crop of one Bhapkar and the murder had been committed by strangulation by use of a towel. (ii) PW3 Smt. Kasturabai lodged the complaint with the Baramati Police station, which came to be registered as CR No.107 of 2009 under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. PW5 Balkrishna Govind Salunke was then attached to Baramati Police station. After the lodgment of the first information report on 14.11.2009 by the complainant Smt.Kasturabai, he recorded the said CR No.107 of 2009 and took over the investigation of the same. He visited the spot of the incident, prepared spot panchanama and took photographs of the dead body. A towel was found fastened to the neck of the dead body. He sent the dead body for postmortem examination. PW5 collected the advance cause of death certificate wherein it was opined that the death of Kavita @ Jyoti was due to “cardiorespiratory arrest due to severe asphyxia due to strangulation”. He arrested the appellant on 15.11.2009. During the course of investigation, when the appellant was in custody, expressed his willingness to point out the spot of incident where he alleged to have committed the murder of his wife Kavita @ Jyoti. Accordingly the panchanama at the instance of the appellant thereby showing the place of incident came to be recorded. PW5 thereafter collected the necessary documents such as reports from the Chemical Analyzer and other reports and after completion of the investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baramati. (iii) The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baramati by its order dated 5.2.2010 committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, as the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the said Court. The Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant below Exhibit2A under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant in vernacular language, to which he denied and pleaded not guilty. The appellant claimed to be tried. The Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant below Exhibit2A under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant in vernacular language, to which he denied and pleaded not guilty. The appellant claimed to be tried. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case, was pleased to convict the appellant for the offences charged against him as stated herein above. 3. Heard Mr. Arfan Sait, the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant and Mrs. A.S. Pai, the learned APP for the respondent-State. We have carefully scrutinized the entire record and also the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that, there was no motive at all for the appellant to commit the said crime. That there was substantial time gap between the appellant last seen together in the company of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti and the finding of the dead body of the deceased in the sugarcane crop. He has further submitted that, as there is no evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the present crime, he may be acquitted by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order. The learned APP for the respondent-State strongly supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that, apart from the two strong circumstances i.e. motive and last seen together, the third and most significant circumstance is that the towel which was in use of the appellant was found fastened to the neck of the deceased which directly connect the appellant with the present crime. She therefore submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly and correctly passed the impugned judgment and order and there is no need to interfere with the same. 4. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appointed for the appellant and the learned APP for the respondent-State, it would be useful to refer to the evidence, in brief, of the prosecution witnesses. 5. PW1 Pandurang Krishna Shinde is a panchwitness to the inquest panchanama of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. He has stated in his testimony that he had taken contract for preparing baggyas of sugarcane waste which is used for fuel. 5. PW1 Pandurang Krishna Shinde is a panchwitness to the inquest panchanama of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. He has stated in his testimony that he had taken contract for preparing baggyas of sugarcane waste which is used for fuel. He has stated that the appellant Ramesh and his wife Kavita @ Jyoti were working with him. He has further stated that the appellant and his wife attended the work on 12.11.2009 and were absent for work since 13.11.2009. This witness is panch to the inquest panchanama of deceased dated 14.11.2009. The inquest panchanama is at Exhibit-10. The said inquest panchanam dated 14.11.2009 pertaining to the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti has been admitted by the appellant under Section 294. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had not cross-examined this witness. The cross-examination of this witness is declined by the appellant. 6. PW2 Vitthal Bapu Bhapkar is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Gut No.202 of village Pahunewadi wherein the dead body of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti was found on 14.11.2009. It appears to us that the evidence of this witness is formal in nature and hence the appellant declined to cross-examine this witness. 7. PW3 Smt. Kasturabai Ram Pawar is the elder sister of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. PW3 in her testimony has stated that the appellant is the husband of her sister Kavita @ Jyoti. In the year 2009, PW3 along with her husband and her sister Kavita @ Jyoti were working in Malegaon Sugar Factory in the baggyas section of sugar factory. She and her husband were working in the shift of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and the appellant and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti were working in the evening shift i.e. from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. on the next morning. She has further stated that Kavita @ Jyoti was having one daughter and two sons, aged about 3, 2 and 1 years respectively at the time of incident. PW3 Smt. Kasturabai has stated that the appellant used to suspect about chastity and character of his wife i.e. Kavita @ Jyoti. She has further stated that the appellant was addicted to liquor and he used to beat Kavita @ Jyoti on suspecting her character and chastity under the influence of liquor. PW3 Smt. Kasturabai has stated that the appellant used to suspect about chastity and character of his wife i.e. Kavita @ Jyoti. She has further stated that the appellant was addicted to liquor and he used to beat Kavita @ Jyoti on suspecting her character and chastity under the influence of liquor. This witness has further stated that on 13.11.2009, she and her husband had been to their work place in the said factory and they met the appellant and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti on the gate of the said factory in the morning. The appellant and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti had completed their work shift. PW3 completed her work on that day in the factory at about 8 p.m. and went to her residence, however she did not notice the appellant and his wife on the gate of sugar factory on that day. She therefore made enquiry with PW4 i.e. Jayram B. Chavan when he told her that the appellant and Kavita @ Jyoti had gone to the forest for collecting wood for fuel at about 4 p.m., but they did not return. PW3 thereafter went to her residential premises. She noticed that the appellant and Kavita @ Jyoti were not at their residence and their children were weeping. She took the children of the appellant and Kavita @ Jyoti to her premises and after serving them the meal, the children slept there. PW3 has stated that her residential premises and the premises of the appellant are adjoining and are nearby. That PW3 and other persons tried to search the appellant and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti in the said night. However, their efforts were in vein. She has further stated that on the next day morning i.e. 14.11.2009 she came to know that the dead body of Kavita was lying in the sugarcane field of one Mr. Vitthal Bhapkar (PW2). Thereafter PW3 went there and saw the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti. She noticed that Kavita @ Jyoti sustained injuries to her chin and lower jaw region. That Kavita @ Jyoti was not having blouse on her person, her saree was lying by the side of her body and one axe was lying nearby her. She noticed one towel which was found around her neck. The said towel was having red and black squares. She thereafter lodged the complaint with the police. That Kavita @ Jyoti was not having blouse on her person, her saree was lying by the side of her body and one axe was lying nearby her. She noticed one towel which was found around her neck. The said towel was having red and black squares. She thereafter lodged the complaint with the police. PW3 identified the towel i.e. Article1 which was fastened around the neck of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. PW3 has stated that as the appellant was suspecting about the chastity and character of Kavita @ Jyoti, he has committed the murder of Kavita @ Jyoti. This witness was cross-examined at length by the appellant. However, no material which would either come to the help of the appellant or which would discredit the testimony of this witness was brought on record. The testimony of this witness in examination-in-chief has remained unshaken. 8. PW4 Jayram Babu Chavan is the neighbur of PW3 Smt. Kasturabai and the appellant. PW4 in his testimony has stated that he was working in the Malegaon Sugar Factory in the transport section of baggyas. He has further stated that there were other 10 to 12 families were working with him. They all were residing in the hutments of sugar factory. He knew the appellant before the Court. That the appellant was working with his family in the said sugar factory. PW4 in his testimony has further stated that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and his wife i.e. deceased Kavita @ Jyoti about the character of his wife. PW4 has further stated that he along with the appellant, his wife i.e. deceased Kavita @ Jyoti and other labours had been to the duty from 4 p.m. of 12.11.2009 to 8 a.m. of 13.11.2009. That on 13.11.2009 at about 8 a.m. their duty shift ended and they came out of the factory. Thereafter all the said persons had been to their respective hutments, they took their lunch and retied for taking rest. PW4 has further stated that he woke up at about 4 p.m. on 13.11.2009 and saw that the appellant with an axe and a towel on his shoulder proceeding to collect the fuel wood with his wife Kavita @ Jyoti at about 4 p.m. He was acquainted with the towel, as the appellant used to use the towel in his daily routine work. This witness identified the red colour towel with checks which is Article No.1. He has further stated that the appellant and his wife did not turn up to their residence/hutment till the night hours of 13.11.2009. On 14.11.2009 after completing his duty at about 8 a.m. in the morning, he came to know about the murder of Kavita @ Jyoti which had taken place. He thereafter went to the spot of incident in the sugarcane field and noticed the towel which is Article No.1 herein. This witness was cross-examined at length by the appellant and in his cross-examination, apart from single admission to the effect that, there was no quarrel between the appellant and his wife during the work hours in the sugarcane factory, no other material has been elicited which would discredit of this witness. The PW4 Jayram Chavan is an independent witness. 9. PW5 Balkrishna Govind Salunke is the Investigating Officer. He has stated in his testimony that, he was attached to Baramati Police Station from 9.1.2009 to 5.7.2010 as Assistant Police Inspector. He has further stated that on 14.11.2009 a report was lodged by Smt. Kasturabai Pawar (PW3). He recorded her complaint and the same was registered as CR no.107 of 2009 under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR is at Exhibit 12. PW5 has stated that he visited the spot of incident, prepared the spot panchanama which is at Exhibit 19. He also prepared the sketch map of the incident. He effected the inquest panchanama which is at Exhibit 10. He sent the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti for postmortem examination by requisition letter which is at Exhibit 20. He received the postmortem report from the concerned authority which is at Exhibit 34 on record. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baramati. In the cross-examination, this witness has denied all the suggestions put to him and stuck to his testimony which he has given in his examination-in-chief. In other words, there is no material at all which has been brought on record by the appellant which would discredit the testimony of this witness. 10. PW6 is Dr. Ajit Balasaheb Deshmukh who has conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. PW6 in his testimony has stated that he was serving as a Medical Officer since 2008. In other words, there is no material at all which has been brought on record by the appellant which would discredit the testimony of this witness. 10. PW6 is Dr. Ajit Balasaheb Deshmukh who has conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti. PW6 in his testimony has stated that he was serving as a Medical Officer since 2008. That on 14.11.2009, he was serving in the rural hospital, RuiBaramati. The dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti was brought by Police Constable Mr. Tonde. That he and Doctor Pandurang Gawade conducted the postmortem of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti between 5.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on 14.11.2009. On external examination, he noticed the following injuries as are mentioned in Col. No.17 of the postmortem report: “(i) Semicircular ligature marks in front of the neck, having size 6 cm x 3 cm. It was broad mark. (ii) Abrasion on both infracalvicular region, measuring 4 cm x 2 cm. (iii) Evidence of fracture of hyoid bone. (iv) On cut section of the ligature mark there was evidence of petechial haemorrhage in the sub cuteneous tissue. (v) There was evidence of human jaw mark on right infraauxiliary region lateral to right breast. (vi) There was evidence of abrasion on right coastal margin measuring 6 cm x 3 cm. (vii) Both eyes were swollen, blood was oozing out through mouth and both nostrils. On internal examination of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti, PW6 Dr. Deshmukh noticed that both lungs were cyanosed. He therefore opined that the cause of death was due to cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to severe asphysix due to strangulation. He further opined that external injuries are corresponding to internal injuries. PW6 has further stated that the external and corresponding internal injuries were possible by means of Towel which is Article No.1 before the Court, by strangulation. The postmortem report which is at Exhibit 34 has been proved by this witness. In the cross-examination, no material has been elicited by the appellant to raise any doubt about the testimony of this witness. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2013 CRI L.J. 1534. The said judgment of the Supreme Court deals with a circumstance of only a strong suspicion against the appellant. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Pal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2013 CRI L.J. 1534. The said judgment of the Supreme Court deals with a circumstance of only a strong suspicion against the appellant. In view of the facts of the present case, in our view, the said judgment is not at all useful to the appellant. 12. Thus, after scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we find that PW3 Smt. Kasturabai and PW4 Jayram Chavan are the witnesses who have spelt out the motive in the present crime i.e. the appellant used to suspect about the chastity and character of his wifedeceased Kavita @ Jyoti. The appellant was addicted to liquor and he used to beat Kavita @ Jyoti by suspecting her character and chastity. PW4 Jayram Chavan the neighbour of the appellant and deceased Kavita @ Jyoti and an independent witness had last seen the appellant and the deceased Kavita @ Jyoti together at about 4 p.m. on 13.11.2009 when the appellant and Kavita @ Jyoti were proceeding to bring the fuelwood from the forest. The most important aspect of the present case is that, the towel, i.e. Article no.1, which was in regular use of the appellant has been identified by this witness. The said towel Article no.1 was found fastened around the neck of deceased Kavita @ Jyoti when her dead body was found in the sugarcane crop of PW2. PW6 Dr. Ajit Deshmukh in his testimony has stated that the external and corresponding injuries found on the dead body of Kavita @ Jyoti were possible by means of Article No.1 i.e. the towel. 13. The another circumstance which connects the appellant with the present crime is that, the human blood was found on the clothes of the appellant i.e. full shirt and full pant, which were seized at the time of his arrest. The report of Chemical Analyzer which is at Exhibit 30 shows that the said two articles were having blood stains on it, which are of human origin. It is pertinent note here that the appellant did not offer any explanation in his defence about finding of bloodstains on his clothes. The defence of appellant is of total denial. The report of Chemical Analyzer which is at Exhibit 30 shows that the said two articles were having blood stains on it, which are of human origin. It is pertinent note here that the appellant did not offer any explanation in his defence about finding of bloodstains on his clothes. The defence of appellant is of total denial. We may note here that the Article No.2 i.e. axe which was found at the spot of incident, has no relevance in the present crime. 14. Thus after taking into consideration the circumstances available against the appellant, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the chain of circumstances which lead to the sole hypothesis that the appellant and the appellant alone is the perpetrator of the present crime and is guilty for committing the same. 15. In the circumstances, we dismiss the present Appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant and the judgment and order dated 30th January 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Sessions Case No.21 of 2010. 16. We quantify the total legal fees to be paid to Mr. Arfan Sait, the learned Advocate appointed by the Legal Services Committee to represent the appellant in this appeal, at Rs.5000/- 17. Since the appellant is in jail, the Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned jail authority forthwith and without any delay.