Judgment : A.S. Gadkari, J. 1. The Appellant/original accused has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 29 December 2004 passed by IInd Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.118 of 2004 thereby convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Appellant has further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Learned Trial Court has ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The accused was charged of committing the murder of his wife i.e. deceased Swati on 28 April 2004 at about 1.30 to 2.00 a.m. in the wee hours. 2. The brief facts which can be enumerated from the record be stated as follows : i) P.W.1–Anil Khatade, the brother of deceased Swati on 28 April 2004 at about 7.30 a.m. when was at his house at village Kasegaon was informed by the brothers of the Appellant that Swati was suffering from vomiting. He along with his parents went to village Kasegaon at the house of the Appellant when Anil noticed that Swati was sleeping in front of the house and he also found her to be in dead condition. ii) He immediately rushed to the police station and lodged the occurrence report which is at Exhibit 9 dated 28 April 2004, wherein he expressed his suspicion about the foul play at the hands of the Appellant and requested the police to conduct detailed enquiry into the matter. iii) P.W.7–Sopan Vitthal Jadhav was attached to Taluka police station, Pandharpur on 28 April 2004 and was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector. On 28 April 2004 when P.W.7–Sopan was on his duty as P.S.O. at about 10.05 a.m. he accepted the report submitted by P.W.1 –Anil Khatade. Same was written as per the narration of P.W.1–Anil Khatade. On the basis of the said report, P.W.7–A.S.I. Sopan Jadhav lodged ADR No.49 of 2004 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the further enquiry pertaining to the same was handed over to Police Head Constable Ghodake. Same was written as per the narration of P.W.1–Anil Khatade. On the basis of the said report, P.W.7–A.S.I. Sopan Jadhav lodged ADR No.49 of 2004 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the further enquiry pertaining to the same was handed over to Police Head Constable Ghodake. During the enquiry of the said ADR No.49 of 2004 Police Constable Jawale seized the ornaments and clothes which were on the person of deceased Swati. The same were seized by drawing the Panchanama in presence of pancha witnesses. The said Panchanama is at Exhibit 19. iv) P.W.10–Sandipan Maruti Sawant, Assistant Police Inspector was attached to Taluka Police Station, Pandharpur as A.P.I. on 28 April 2004. He received a complaint from P.W.1–Anil. The complaint is at Exhibit 10. On the basis of the said complaint, P.W.10–A.P.I. Sandipan Sawant registered CR No.82 of 2004 under Sections 302, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and started investigation pertaining to the said crime. P.W.10–A.P.I. Sandipan Sawant arrested the Appellant on 28 April 2004. He did interrogation with witnesses Dhondiba Khatade, Gunabai @ Laxmibai Khatade and recorded their statements. He also recorded the statements of other witnesses. The Appellant when was in police custody, on 3 May 2004 voluntarily expressed his willingness to show the place, where he had concealed the nylon rope which was used in commission of the crime. Accordingly, his memorandum statement was recorded by P.W.10–A.P.I. Sawant. The said memorandum statement is at Exhibit-13. In pursuance of the said memorandum statement the Appellant led the police personnel to the place where he had concealed the nylon rope. The Appellant led the police personnel to his house and produced a nylon rope. The said nylon rope was seized in presence of two pancha witnesses. The seizure Panchanama is at Exhibit 13-A. v) P.W.10–A.P.I. Sawant thereafter got the scene of occurrence map drawn in the office of the Tahsildar, Pandharpur. P.W.10–A.P.I. Sawant also collected the necessary documents including the postmortem notes from P.W.8–Dr. Pankaj Gaikwad. The postmortem notes are at Exhibit 24. That after completion of the investigation P.W.10–A.P.I. Sawant submitted a charge-sheet before the court of competent jurisdiction. 3. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Learned Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 2. The said charge was read over to the Appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried. That after completion of the investigation P.W.10–A.P.I. Sawant submitted a charge-sheet before the court of competent jurisdiction. 3. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the Learned Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit 2. The said charge was read over to the Appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried. The defence as can be discerned from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Appellant, is of total denial and also is of alibi. The Appellant in his defence has stated that on the date of the incident he was working in the field of Mr. Annasaheb Deshmukh, when he received the information about the death of his wife. For the entire day he was working in the field of Mr. Deshmukh and after the receipt of the information about the death of his wife, he came to his house. The Learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case was pleased to convict the Appellant by its impugned judgment and order dated 29 December 2004 as afore-stated. 4. Mr. Agandsurve, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the Appellant with the crime. He has further submitted that the Appellant was working in the field of one Mr. Annasaheb Deshmukh on yearly basis and on the date of incident, he did not come to his house in the night and the Appellant came to his house only after the receipt of the information about the death of his wife. He has further stated that the medical evidence put forth by the prosecution is not sufficient to connect the Appellant with the crime. Learned counsel for the Appellant therefore prayed that the Appeal may be allowed thereby acquitting the Appellant from all the charges. Per contra learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order by arguing that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and convincing which leads to only one inference that the Appellant is the only person who has committed the crime. The learned APP further urged before us that the Appeal may be dismissed thereby upholding the order passed by the Learned Trial Court. 5. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned APP further urged before us that the Appeal may be dismissed thereby upholding the order passed by the Learned Trial Court. 5. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is the settled position of law that suspicion, howsoever, strong it may be, is in itself insufficient for conviction on its sole basis. It is the settled position of law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In case resting on circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should be of conclusive nature i.e. they should have the definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances so established should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and unquestionably point towards the guilt of the accused. In other words the circumstances should be conclusive i.e. accused and the accused alone has committed the crime. 6. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, let us scrutinize the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. In order to deal with the submission advanced before us by Mr. Agandsurve, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned APP Mrs. Shinde, it would be useful to refer in brief to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 7. P.W.1–Anil Khatade is the brother of deceased Swati. In his testimony he has stated that Swati was married with the Appellant about twelve years back. Out of the said wedlock two sons and one daughter was begotten to the deceased. Initially the Appellant was doing the business of milk for a period of ten years. The Appellant suffered losses in the said business and was in debt. P.W.1–Anil has further stated that the Appellant thereafter demanded an amount of Rs.40,000/-from P.W.1–Anil and the parents of deceased Swati. That the said amount of Rs.40,000/- was not paid to the Appellant by P.W.1 –Anil and his parents despite repeated demands from the Appellant and as the said amount was not paid to the Appellant, the Appellant was subjecting deceased Swati to cruelty. The Appellant was abusing and assaulting deceased Swati. The Appellant used to send Swati to her parent’s house. The Appellant was abusing and assaulting deceased Swati. The Appellant used to send Swati to her parent’s house. That P.W.1–Anil and other family members used to convince the Appellant. Irrespective of the same, the Appellant was harassing and ill-treating his sister Swati. P.W.1–Anil has stated in his deposition that off late the Appellant was addicted to liquor and was also smoking ganjaa for last one year. The Appellant was working in the field of one Mr. Annasaheb Deshmukh, a resident of Kasegaon on yearly basis. The Appellant was insisting P.W.1–Anil and his relatives to obtain loan on the residential house and to give the said amount to the Appellant. P.W.1–Anil expressed his inability for complying with the demand of the Appellant. P.W.1–Anil on one occasion paid Rs.2,000/- to the Appellant by obtaining a hand loan from his friend Umesh Shinde. P.W.1–Anil after a period of 5-6 months went to the Appellant and demanded the amount of Rs.2,000/-, when the Appellant told him that P.W.1 – Anil should pay him Rs.40,000/- for clearing his debts and questioned P.W.1–Anil as to why he is demanding Rs.2,000/- from him. P.W.1–Anil has stated that by saying so the Appellant started abusing and beating deceased Swati. P.W.1–Anil has stated that though he had forgiven the loan paid by the Appellant and did not demand the same subsequently, the Appellant was subjecting deceased Swati with cruelty for a demand of Rs.40,000/-. P.W.1–Anil has further stated that on the eve of the holy festival, Akshay Trutiya, P.W.1–Anil and his parents had called the Appellant and deceased Swati for dinner at their house. At that time the Appellant told P.W.1–Anil that he is having a loan of Rs.40,000/- and P.W.1–Anil is not paying that amount to him for clearing the said loan. At that juncture deceased Swati intervened in the said conversation and told the Appellant that first he should repay the amount of Rs.2,000/- paid by P.W.1–Anil. At that time the Appellant started beating deceased Swati on the ground that why she is intervening in the discussion and asking to pay Rs.2,000/- to her brother. That the father of P.W.1–Anil and P.W.1 himself separated the Appellant and Swati, convinced the Appellant and they were sent back. At that time the Appellant started beating deceased Swati on the ground that why she is intervening in the discussion and asking to pay Rs.2,000/- to her brother. That the father of P.W.1–Anil and P.W.1 himself separated the Appellant and Swati, convinced the Appellant and they were sent back. P.W.1–Anil has further stated that he received the information on the date of the incident from the brother of the Appellant that Swati is suffering from vomiting and therefore he along with his parents immediately rushed to village Kasegaon. That when he reached to the house of the Appellant, he noticed that deceased Swati was sleeping in front of the house and he further noticed that Swati was dead. He therefore immediately rushed to the police station and lodged a report with P.W.7–A.S.I. Sopan Jadhav and P.W.10-A.P.I. Sawant as has been stated herein above. 8. P.W.1–Anil has further stated in his testimony that the postmortem on the corpse of his sister Swati was conducted in the Cottage Hospital at Pandharpur. That when the dead body was brought at about 3.00 p.m. in the said hospital, P.W.1–Anil was present there. He noticed ligature mark on the neck of his sister. He was informed by the doctor that his sister Swati died due to strangulation. P.W.1–Anil has deposed that the Appellant was present at that time in the hospital. P.W.1–Anil asked the Appellant how it happened, to which the Appellant replied that at about 1.30 a.m. on 28 April 2004 there was a quarrel between the Appellant and deceased Swati and during the said quarrel he strangulated Swati by a rope and therefore Swati died. It is to be noted here that this is the extra judicial confession given by the Appellant to P.W.1–Anil. 9. P.W.3–Rani Lalbondre is the sister of deceased Swati. This witness has also elaborately deposed about the illegal demand, addiction of the Appellant to liquor and ganjaa and the harassment and cruelty meted out by the Appellant to deceased Swati for fulfilling the demand of Rs.40,000/-. P.W.3–Rani in her testimony has further stated that when she visited the house of Swati after the information, she noticed the body of Swati was lying on the ground in front of the house. There was ligature mark on her neck and there was swelling on both sides of her chin. P.W.3–Rani also noticed some scratches on the face. P.W.3–Rani in her testimony has further stated that when she visited the house of Swati after the information, she noticed the body of Swati was lying on the ground in front of the house. There was ligature mark on her neck and there was swelling on both sides of her chin. P.W.3–Rani also noticed some scratches on the face. That the ear tops of the right side was damaged. P.W.3- Rani has further stated that when her brother asked the Appellant as to how it had happened, the Appellant told to the brother P.W.1–Anil, herself–P.W.3 and her parents that a quarrel took place in between the Appellant and deceased Swati in the midnight and therefore he committed murder of Swati. It is to be noted here that this is also an extra judicial confession given by the Appellant to P.W.3–Rani. 10. Thus there are two witnesses in the present case to whom the Appellant has given extra judicial confession about committing the murder of deceased Swati by him. These two witnesses are cross examined by the Appellant at length. However, their testimony is not shaken at all. It further appears to us that there is no cross examination at all which would disturb the extra judicial confession given by the Appellant to these two witnesses. 11. P.W.2–Dattatraya Sathe is a pancha witness to the discovery of nylon rope at the instance of the Appellant. P.W.2-Sathe has stated in his testimony that as per the voluntary statement given by the Appellant a memorandum Panchanama which is at Exhibit 13 came to be recorded. In pursuance of the memorandum Panchanama which is at Exhibit 13, the Appellant led the pancha witnesses and the police to his house and thereafter the accused took out a light pink colour nylon rope which was hidden by the Appellant under the tin sheet and gunny bag. That the police seized the said nylon rope by effecting a Panchanama which is at Exhibit 13-A. P.W.2– Dattatraya Sathe is cross examined at length by the Appellant. However, no fruitful material could be elicited from the cross examination. 12. P.W.3–Rani Lalbondre is also a pancha witness to the inquest Panchanama which is at Exhibit 15. P.W.4-Anil Dhotre and P.W.5–Atul Salunkhe are the witnesses to the spot Panchanama Exhibit 17 and Panchanama of seizure of clothes of deceased at Exhibit 19 respectively. However, no fruitful material could be elicited from the cross examination. 12. P.W.3–Rani Lalbondre is also a pancha witness to the inquest Panchanama which is at Exhibit 15. P.W.4-Anil Dhotre and P.W.5–Atul Salunkhe are the witnesses to the spot Panchanama Exhibit 17 and Panchanama of seizure of clothes of deceased at Exhibit 19 respectively. The evidence led by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 pertaining to proving of inquest Panchanama, spot Panchanama and the Panchanama of seizure of clothes of deceased is formal in nature i.e. to say they have proved the said respective Panchanamas in their testimony. As stated in paragraph 9 herein above, P.W.3-Rani Lalbondre is the sister of deceased Swati who has also been examined on the points which have been stated in paragraphs 9 and 10 herein above. 13. P.W.6–Smt. Gunabai Khatade is the mother of deceased Swati. In her testimony she has deposed that the Appellant, her son-in-law had suffered losses in his milk business and was indebted for Rs.40,000/-. That the Appellant used to demand Rs.40,000/- from her daughter Swati inter alia asking her to bring the said amount from her parents. She has further deposed that since last two years before the date of incident the Appellant was abusing, beating and used to quarrel with Swati for fulfillment of his demand. She has further deposed that the Appellant was addicted to liquor and was also smoking ganja. This witness has further corroborated the testimony of P.W.1–Anil on the point of beating of Swati in presence of P.W.1–Anil and other relatives on the day of Akshay Trutiya at the house of P.W.6. This witness was cross examined by the Appellant, however, no material which can come to the aid of the Appellant has been elicited in the said cross examination. 14. P.W.8–Dr. Pankaj Gaikwad is the Medical Officer who was then attached to the Cottage Hospital. P.W.8–Dr. Pankaj in his testimony has stated that on 28 April 2004 Police Head Constable Ghodake brought the dead body of a female viz. Swati for conducting the postmortem at about 3.30 p.m. He conducted the postmortem on the said dead body of Swati. On external examination, he noticed the injuries like impression marks that means ligature mark which was encircling the whole neck at cervical region, which was bluish and black in colour. Swati for conducting the postmortem at about 3.30 p.m. He conducted the postmortem on the said dead body of Swati. On external examination, he noticed the injuries like impression marks that means ligature mark which was encircling the whole neck at cervical region, which was bluish and black in colour. The dimensions of the said ligature mark were 12 x ½ cm and the impression marks were more than 2 in numbers. He also noticed abrasions and bruises present around the ligature mark. He further noticed the subcutaneous tissue ecchymosed face was congested and also found on palpation that there was crepitotion at larynx anteriorly. Peripheral cyanoris present over nail beds. P.W.8 Dr. Pankaj Gaikwad has stated that the injuries were all anti mortem injuries. On internal examination of larynx, P.W.8 Dr. Gaikwad found that there was fracture thyroid cartilage, fracture cricoid cartilage means fracture larynx. P.W.8 – Dr. Gaikwad therefore opined that the death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation. P.W.8–Dr.Gaikwad thereafter prepared the postmortem notes which are at Exhibit 24 on record. P.W.8–Dr. Gaikwad has further stated in his testimony that the ligature marks which were found to him are possible due to the nylon rope which was shown to him from the Muddemal property. He has further stated that abrasion and bruises were possible due to struggling. This witness i.e. P.W.8 was cross examined by the Appellant. However, no omission and/or admission has been elicited from his examination. 15. P.W.7 is Police Head Constable Jadhav who recorded the ADR No.49 of 2004 which is at Exhibit 9 and P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer Sandipan Sawant, who registered the FIR bearing CR No.82 of 2004 under Sections 302 and 498-A on the basis of the information given by P.W.1 – Anil. These two witnesses have stated about the lodgment of ADR and the FIR/CR and the steps taken by them in pursuance thereof upto the stage of submission of charge-sheet. In their cross examination no fruitful material has been elicited by the Appellant. 16. These two witnesses have stated about the lodgment of ADR and the FIR/CR and the steps taken by them in pursuance thereof upto the stage of submission of charge-sheet. In their cross examination no fruitful material has been elicited by the Appellant. 16. After scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record, we find that the defence of alibi adopted by the Appellant to the effect that on the date of the incident i.e. on 28 April 2004 he was stationed in the field of Annasaheb Deshmukh and was not present in his house is merely an after thought and the said defence is not supported by any cogent and satisfactory evidence thereof. Likewise we have noticed that no witness states about his absence from the house on the date of the incident. After minute scrutiny of the evidence on record, we found that the deceased was in the company of the Appellant on the fateful night i.e. in the matrimonial house of deceased Swati. We further found that the piece of evidence of extra judicial confession given by the Appellant to P.W.1 and P.W.3 is convincing and trustworthy. The said piece of evidence is not at all shattered by the Appellant in his cross examination rather there is no cross examination at all on the said point and the said piece of evidence remains undisturbed. Thus we find that it is the Appellant and the Appellant only who is guilty of the present crime. The chain of circumstances adduced by the prosecution is complete and there is no other hypothesis which would lead to a conclusion that the Appellant is not guilty of the offence. 17. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid analysis of the evidence is that the Appellant is the only person who is responsible for the death of Swati and thus the Appeal preferred by the Appellant sans of any merit and is dismissed accordingly by upholding the judgment and order passed by the Learned Trial Court. The Appeal preferred by the Appellant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs by maintaining the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.