JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Appellant has challenged Judgment of conviction dated 7th January, 2016 of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.98 of 2012, by which appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of prosecution against appellant, in short, is as under: Appellant and his wife deceased Mayabai were residing together in the house at Tohgaon. Their son namely Ravindra was residing at Bhadravati and daughter Pinki was married and residing with her husband at village Amboli, Tq.Chamorshi, District Gadchiroli 3. As per the case of prosecution, appellant/accused was addicted to liquor. He used to snatch money from his wife and consume liquor. He always used to beat his deceased wife under the influence of liquor. Due to behaviour of appellant, his son Ravindra was residing separately at Bhadravati. 4. In the night of incident, appellant and his wife only were in their house. In the evening, deceased Mayabai had been to the house of Anita Misalwar (PW2) and she talked with her. Deceased told her that accused always used to beat her and she was under fear of death at the hands of appellant. She returned to the house. 5. Early in the morning, on 26.6.2012, Anita (PW2) was informed by Anjanabai that accused came to her and disclosed her that deceased was lying in the house. Therefore, Anita, Anjanabai along with Gulab Itankar went to the house of appellant/accused. They found deceased lying on the cot. Her blouse was removed and tied to leg. There were injuries on her neck and chest. Blood was oozing from her nose. Anita (PW2) was sure that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. Therefore, she immediately informed to Police Patil and went to Police Station and lodged report vide Exh.13. Crime was registered vide Printed F.I.R. (Exh.14). Anita also informed about the incident to the son and daughter of the appellant on telephone. 6. A.P.I. Hemant Chandekar (PW6) reached to the spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama. He seized pillow cover and pieces of bangles. Pillow cover was stained with blood. He took photographs of dead body (Exh.23). He prepared inquest panchanama vide (Exh.25). Anita also informed about the incident to the son and daughter of the appellant on telephone. 6. A.P.I. Hemant Chandekar (PW6) reached to the spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama. He seized pillow cover and pieces of bangles. Pillow cover was stained with blood. He took photographs of dead body (Exh.23). He prepared inquest panchanama vide (Exh.25). Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused and seized his clothes. His dhoti and baniyan were stained with blood. I.O. also seized blood samples of deceased and clothes as per seizure panchanama (Exh.28). I.O. obtained the documents of ownership from the Gram Panchayat and recorded statements of witnesses. After complete investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court. 7. Charge was framed at Exh.4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Same was read over and explained to the appellant in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the appellant appears to be of total denial, accidental death and plea of alibi. The appellant has taken alternate defence. 8. Mrs. S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that evidence of Anita (PW2) is not reliable because there was no good relations between the appellant and this witness. Learned Counsel submitted that there are material omission in her evidence. She has further submitted that evidence of Ravindra Misalwar (PW3) and Pinki Sandukwar (PW5) is also not reliable because they had also not good relations with the appellant. Learned Counsel has submitted that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant. 9. Heard Mr.Ambarish Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. He has strongly supported the impugned Judgment. He has submitted that circumstantial evidence are proved by prosecution. Presence of appellant is not denied. Deceased was in the company of appellant at the time of incident. No plausible explanation was given by him as to how his wife met homicidal death. He has taken a false plea of alibi. At last, it is submitted that the impugned Judgment is perfectly legal and correct and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined in all total six witnesses. Dr. He has taken a false plea of alibi. At last, it is submitted that the impugned Judgment is perfectly legal and correct and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined in all total six witnesses. Dr. Madhavi Ramteke (PW1), Medical Officer has stated in her evidence that on 26th June, 2012 she had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mayabai. She found injuries to the neck, chest and right upper limb of deceased. Accordingly, she prepared post mortem report (Exh.9). As per her opinion, cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. As per her evidence, death of deceased might be due to pressing of thumb and fingers to neck of deceased. Accordingly, she replied the queries of I.O. 11. Anita (PW2) (Exh.12) has stated in her evidence that there was quarrel between appellant and his wife. Before the night of incident, in the evening, deceased had been to her house and stated that accused may kill her on any day. In the next day morning, Anjanabai came to her and told that accused had been to her house and told that deceased was lying on the ground. Therefore, she along with Anjanabai and Gulab went to the house of appellant/accused and found that deceased was lying dead. She had sustained injuries on chest, neck, eye etc. There was no blouse on her body. Blouse was tied to her right leg. Her leg was put in sewing machine. She was sure that appellant had killed his wife Maya. Therefore, she immediately went to Police Station and lodged report (Exh.13). ASI Tejram Thakare (PW4) (Exh.17) recorded her report and registered the crime vide F.I.R. (Exh.14). 12. Ravindra (PW3) (Exh.15) has stated in his evidence that he was residing at Bhadravati at the time of incident. His father/appellant along with his mother were only residing at Tohgaon. Appellant used to quarrel and beat his mother by consuming liquor. Appellant used to demand money to his mother for consuming liquor. He used to beat her on refusal to pay him money. On receipt of information about the incident, he immediately came to village Tohgaon from Bhadravati. He saw dead body of his mother. She had sustained injuries on her chest, eye and head. Blood was oozing from her neck. Appellant used to demand money to his mother for consuming liquor. He used to beat her on refusal to pay him money. On receipt of information about the incident, he immediately came to village Tohgaon from Bhadravati. He saw dead body of his mother. She had sustained injuries on her chest, eye and head. Blood was oozing from her neck. Pillow cover was stained with blood. There were injuries on her neck. Her right leg was tied by blouse. In the cross-examination, he has stated that, in the night prior to the date of incident, his mother had talked with him on telephone and had told him that his father/appellant abused her after drinking liquor. 13. ASI Thakare (PW4) has stated that on 26.6.2012 at about 6.30 a.m. Anita (PW2) came to Police Station and lodged report. He scribed the report as per her say vide Exh.13. Thereafter, he registered crime no.14 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide printed F.I.R. (Exh.14). PSI Chandewar investigated the crime. 14. Pinki (PW5), who is daughter of Appellant and deceased has stated in her evidence that she is residing at Amboli with her husband. Just before eight days of the date of incident, deceased had been to her. Deceased told her that appellant used to illtreat her saying that she should not live in his house and if she fails, he would kill her. Then deceased returned back to the house of appellant. After receipt of information, she immediately came to the spot of incident. Her mother was found dead. She found injuries on her dead body. 15. API Hemant Chandewar (PW6) has stated about the investigation. He has proved material documents i.e. spot panchanama (Exh.21), seizure panchanama of pillow cover and pieces of bangles (Exh.22), photos of dead body (Exh.23), inquest panchanama (Exh.25), seizure panchanama of blood samples of appellant (Exh.32), seizure of blood samples of deceased at Exh.28, seizure panchanama of dhoti and baniyan of appellant at Exh. Nos. 29 and 30, sketch map of spot (Exh.35), owern-ship/Gaon Namuna No.8 issued by the Gram Panchayat (Exh.37) and Chemical Analyser's reports (Exh. Nos. 52 and 53). 16. API Chandewar (PW6) has stated in his evidence that, as per the investigation, appellant and deceased were only residing in the house/spot of incident. Appellant was arrested. His clothes were stained with blood. 29 and 30, sketch map of spot (Exh.35), owern-ship/Gaon Namuna No.8 issued by the Gram Panchayat (Exh.37) and Chemical Analyser's reports (Exh. Nos. 52 and 53). 16. API Chandewar (PW6) has stated in his evidence that, as per the investigation, appellant and deceased were only residing in the house/spot of incident. Appellant was arrested. His clothes were stained with blood. He has recorded statements of witnesses. After complete investigation, he filed charge sheet before the Court. 17. There is no eye witness to the incident. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled law that circumstantial evidence should be of such a nature which only points out guilt towards the accused and none else. Following five material principles/panchasheel are laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . (a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should and not “may be” established; (b) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 18. Keeping in mind the above five principles stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to scrutinize the evidence of prosecution as to whether those circumstances are sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. 19. As per the evidence of Anita (PW2) and her report (Exh.30), it is clear that accused was addicted to liquor. He was always quarrelling with deceased. On 25.6.2012 Mayabai had been to her house and returned at about 9.00 p.m. In her evidence, Anita (PW2) has stated that deceased Maya told her that appellant used to beat her if she fails to give money for consuming liquor. She was under the fear of appellant and expressed her fear saying that he would kill her any day. On 25.6.2012 Mayabai had been to her house and returned at about 9.00 p.m. In her evidence, Anita (PW2) has stated that deceased Maya told her that appellant used to beat her if she fails to give money for consuming liquor. She was under the fear of appellant and expressed her fear saying that he would kill her any day. Though this omission is brought on record in her cross-examination, but it is not material in view of the evidence of son and daughter of appellant. Moreover, witnesses from rural area cannot state each and every fact to the police. Therefore, this is not material discrepancy to disbelieve her evidence. 20. As per evidence of Anita (PW2), in the morning on 26.6.2012 Anjanabi came to her house and told that appellant had been to her and told that deceased was lying in the house. Therefore, she along with Anjanabai went to the house of Mayabai/deceased and found that deceased Mayabai was lying in a pool of blood. Her blouse was removed and tied to her leg. As per her evidence (in the cross-examination) accused disclosed in presence of Anita (PW2) and Anjanabai that deceased had fallen down and sustained injury. She has specifically stated that accused was present in the house when she along with Anjanabai and Gulab went to the house of accused. This particular portion is not denied by the appellant during her cross-examination. 21. The evidence of Ravindra (PW3) shows that in the night of incident his mother talked with him on phone and told him that his father/appellant was abusing her after drinking liquor. His evidence shows that he started residing at Bhadravati because of behaviour of the accused. Due to drinking habit of appellant, he was not meeting with him. His evidence shows that appellant and his mother only were residing in the house at Tohgaon. Appellant used to quarrel and beat his mother by consuming liquor. Appellant used to demand money from his mother for consuming liquor and he used to beat her on refusal to pay him money. 22. The evidence of Anita (PW2) and Ravindra (PW3) is also corroborated by the evidence of daughter of the appellant namely Pinki (PW5). She has stated in her evidence that her father and mother were jointly residing. The appellant was consuming liquor and was not doing any work. Her mother was earning. 22. The evidence of Anita (PW2) and Ravindra (PW3) is also corroborated by the evidence of daughter of the appellant namely Pinki (PW5). She has stated in her evidence that her father and mother were jointly residing. The appellant was consuming liquor and was not doing any work. Her mother was earning. Appellant used to snatch money from her mother to consume liquor and he used to beat her. She has further stated that just before eight days of incident her mother had been to her. She told her that appellant was ill-treating her saying that she should not live in his house and if she fails to do so, he would kill her. Her mother returned back to the house. 23. The evidence of Anita (PW2), Ravindra (PW3) and Pinki (PW4) clearly show that appellant was not doing any work and he was addicted to liquor. Deceased was doing labour work and earning money. Appellant used to snatch money from her. Whenever deceased refused to give money, appellant used to beat her. The evidence of Anita (PW2), Ravindra (PW3) and Pinki (PW5) show that deceased was under the fear of appellant. Therefore, motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased is proved by the prosecution. 24. In respect of death of deceased, evidence of Dr. Madhavi (PW1), Medical Officer shows that on 26.6.2012 she has conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries : (I) In neck : (a) Multiple abrasions on front side of neck extending from right lateral to left lateral ranging from 1 cm. X 0.1 cm. to 1.5 x 0.1 cm. in sickle and liner shape horizontally. (b) Hemorrhagic spots anteriorly. (II) Chest region : (a) Contusion on right breast extending from upper to lower quadrant medially; (b) Abrasion over sternum in middle region of size 4 x 2 cm. which is liner in shape vertically. (c) Contusion on left breast upper and lower quadrant medially. (d) Liner abrasion below right breast of size about 3 x 1 cm. horizontally. (iii) Right upper limb : (a) Right arm :liner abrasion in middle region of size about 2 x 0.1 cm. vertically. (b) Right lower limb :Abrasion over right thigh in middle of size about 3 x 1 cm. (c) Left lower limb :Abrasion on medial side of left thigh of size of about 1 cm. horizontally. (iii) Right upper limb : (a) Right arm :liner abrasion in middle region of size about 2 x 0.1 cm. vertically. (b) Right lower limb :Abrasion over right thigh in middle of size about 3 x 1 cm. (c) Left lower limb :Abrasion on medial side of left thigh of size of about 1 cm. X 0.1 cm. varying number 5 to 7. 25. As per her opinion, cause of death of deceased was asphyxia due to throttling. Accordingly, she issued Post Mortem Report (Exh.9). Some questions were asked to her by Police and she replied to the queries vide Exh. Nos. 10 and 11. She has stated in the reply to the queries that the injuries on the dead body were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. She has stated that the injuries on the dead body of deceased on her chest and throat are possible by fingers and thumb. 26. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Dr.Madhavi (PW1), death of deceased was homicidal and not accidental. Appellant has taken false plea that deceased fell down from a cot and sustained injuries. Some suggestions were given to show that appellant was not present in the house. It is pertinent to note that appellant has an alternate defence. There is no dispute that the house in which the incident took place belongs to the appellant. The copy of ownership document is at Exh.37. As per the evidence of Anita (PW2), Ravindra (PW3) and Pinki (PW5), appellant and deceased were only two persons residing in the house. In the night of incident, the appellant was in the house. 27. It is clear from the evidence of Ravindra (PW2) that, in the night prior to the date of incident, his mother talked with him on telephone and told him that appellant abused her under the influence of liquor. This itself shows that the appellant was in the house in the night of incident. Moreover, the evidence of Anita (PW2) shows that early in the morning when she went to the house of accused, accused was present there. This particular evidence is not denied in the cross-examination. The evidence of Pinki (PW5) shows that after receipt of information she came to village Tohgaon and found dead body of her mother. There were nail marks on her neck and chest. Blood was oozing from her mouth. This particular evidence is not denied in the cross-examination. The evidence of Pinki (PW5) shows that after receipt of information she came to village Tohgaon and found dead body of her mother. There were nail marks on her neck and chest. Blood was oozing from her mouth. In the cross-examination, she has stated that cot of accused was lying near the door in front room; whereas bed of her mother was in the said room. This itself shows that appellant was in the house in the night at the time of incident. 28. Appellant has taken a false plea of alibi. He has not adduced any evidence to prove the same. Plea of alibi is to be proved by the accused. But he did not adduce any evidence in that respect. 29. It is brought on record in the evidence of witnesses that appellant and deceased were only two persons residing in the house. Deceased was in the company of appellant. Therefore, it was for the appellant to show as to how his wife died. As per his defence, deceased fell down and sustained injuries. If it was so, his natural conduct would have been to call the neighbours. He would have taken his wife to the nearest doctor to provide medical aid, but nothing was done by the appellant. He has taken a false plea that she fell down and died. As per the evidence of Dr. Madavi (PW1), such type of injuries cannot be caused by falling from bed and therefore, the defence raised by the appellant is nothing but false. 30. Death of deceased was within the special knowledge of appellant. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was for the appellant to show/explain as to how the injuries were caused to his wife. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh vs. State, (2006) 10 SCC 681 has held as under: “if an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: “(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.” “15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” 31. The facts in the above cited decision in the case of Trimukh are perfectly applicable to the case in hand. It was in the special knowledge of the appellant himself as to how his wife sustained injuries, but he did not give any explanation. It suggests that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. 32. As per the evidence of Anita (PW2), appellant was present at his house. It was in the special knowledge of the appellant himself as to how his wife sustained injuries, but he did not give any explanation. It suggests that the appellant has committed murder of his wife. 32. As per the evidence of Anita (PW2), appellant was present at his house. As per the evidence of Ravindra (PW3), his mother talked with him in the night and informed him that appellant abused her under the influence of liquor. Therefore, presence of the appellant is proved. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh (supra) that “where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for the commission of the crime.” 33. The above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court are perfectly applicable to the case in hand. Appellant was in the house with his wife in the night of incident. He had not given any explanation as to how his wife received injuries. Whatever explanation is given by him stating that his wife fell down and sustained injuries is nothing but false. As per the evidence of Medical Officer Dr.Madhavi (PW1), the injuries found on the dead body of Mayabai cannot be caused by falling on ground. Appellant has taken a false plea of alibi. Hence, the circumstances clearly show that it is the appellant who had committed the crime. 34. The evidence in respect of spot panchanama and seizure panchanama of pillow cover from the bed clearly shows that the pillow was stained with blood. Clothes of deceased and appellant were stained sent to the Chemical Analyser. The C.A. Reports are at Exh. Nos. 51 to 53. The C.A. Reports clearly shows that blood stains were found on the pillow cover, clothes of deceased and appellant. Dhoti and baniyan of appellant were stained with blood. Clothes of deceased and appellant were stained sent to the Chemical Analyser. The C.A. Reports are at Exh. Nos. 51 to 53. The C.A. Reports clearly shows that blood stains were found on the pillow cover, clothes of deceased and appellant. Dhoti and baniyan of appellant were stained with blood. Blood group was not detected, but as per the C.A. Report, human blood was found on the clothes of deceased, pillow cover and dhoti and baniyan of appellant. C.A. Reports corroborate the evidence of prosecution. Moreover, the appellant has not given any explanation as to show his dhoti and baniyan were stained with blood. Appellant was examined by the Medical Officer after his arrest. No injury was found on the person of appellant. Therefore, it is clear that it was the blood of deceased which was found on the clothes of appellant. Appellant had not sustained any injury. Therefore, he could not give any explanation about the blood found on his clothes. 35. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), the following are the material circumstances proved by the prosecution, which only points towards the guilt of the accused and none else. (1) Death of deceased was homicidal. (2) As per evidence of Dr.Madhavi, Medical Officer (PW1), death of deceased was due to throttling. Finger marks and thumb impression were found on the neck. (3) The appellant and his wife were only two persons residing in the house. (4) The appellant was owner of the house as per Exh.37. (5) Appellant was present in the house as per evidence of Anita (PW2). (6) Presence of appellant is also proved because his son Ravindra (PW3) has stated in his cross-examination that, in the night of incident, deceased talked with him and told that appellant had abused her. (7) Motive to kill the deceased is proved by prosecution because appellant was not doing any work. Deceased was doing labour work and was earning. Appellant used to demand money. Whenever deceased refused, he used to beat her. (8) Evidence of Anita (PW2) before Court and her report (Exh.13) show that accused was always ill-treating deceased under the influence of liquor. Deceased was doing labour work and was earning. Appellant used to demand money. Whenever deceased refused, he used to beat her. (8) Evidence of Anita (PW2) before Court and her report (Exh.13) show that accused was always ill-treating deceased under the influence of liquor. (9) Daughter Pinki (PW5) of appellant has stated in her evidence that eight days before the incident, deceased had been to her house and told that accused was ill-treating her saying that she/deceased should not live in the house of appellant and if she fails to do so, appellant would kill her. (10) Appellant has not explained as to how his wife sustained injuries. This fact was within the knowledge of appellant himself. (11) Appellant has taken false plea that deceased fell down and sustained injuries. It is falsified by the evidence of Medical Officer. She has specifically stated that injuries found on the dead body cannot be caused by falling from the bed. (12) Early in the morning appellant went to the house of Anjanabai and told that deceased was lying on the ground. Thereafter, Anita (PW2) and Anjanabai went to the house of appellant and found deceased lying dead on the cot. C.A. Reports show that dhoti and baniyan of appellant were stained with human blood. This itself show presence of appellant on the spot. (13) Appellant has not explained as to how his clothes were stained with blood. MLC (Exh.31) of appellant show that he had not sustained any injury. (14) Appellant has taken a false plea of alibi. Plea of alibi is to be proved by the appellant/accused. He has not given any evidence to show that he was not at the place of incident, but he was elsewhere. (15) Nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of Anita (PW2), Ravindra (PW3), Pinki (PW5) to disbelieve their evidence. (16) Nothing is on record as to why son and daughter of appellant are deposing against him. Son Ravindra (PW3) and daughter Pinki (PW5) of appellant have stated about ill-treatment and beating by the appellant to their mother. 36. All the above circumstances clearly show that it was the appellant who committed the murder of his wife and none else. Prosecution has proved the material circumstances/evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the accused. Son Ravindra (PW3) and daughter Pinki (PW5) of appellant have stated about ill-treatment and beating by the appellant to their mother. 36. All the above circumstances clearly show that it was the appellant who committed the murder of his wife and none else. Prosecution has proved the material circumstances/evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the accused. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court. Fees of Mrs.S.P.Kulkarni, learned Counsel (appointed) appearing for the appellant are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.