and sent the body for autopsy.
The sister of Kanchana, Vanmala, PW 5, was also married in the same village, Mangrulpir.
73 lodged by A 6.
PW 9, maid servant informing of the death.
Mohanlal PW 4, on receipt of the news reached the appellants house at Mangrulpir at about 4.00 p.m. On seeing the companydition of the dead body he too laid companyplaint of murder.
A 6, maternal uncle of the appellant, went to the Police Station and lodged First Information Report, Ex 73, that while Kanchana was drying wet clothers on the top floor, there was short circuit in the house resulting in her death.
Strenuous attempt was made in the grounds of appeal and also vehemently companytended by Shri U.R. Lalit, the learned Senior companynsel for the appellant, that one of the Judges Justice A.A.Desai who decided the appeal, argued against the appellant as an Asstt.
Subsequently, it was entrusted to the C.I.D. and PW 16, Kshir Sagar companyducted the investigation and laid the chargesheet.
215 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.91 of the Bombay High Court of Judicature in Criminal Appeal No.
He drew the Panchanama, Ex 66, the scene of offence, attested by PW 7 and another.
He recovered the burnt articles, ornaments etc.
The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows The motive, namely the affluent circumstance of the accused party, the relative poor financial position leading to ill treatment of Kanchana.
The case rests on circumstantial evidence.
The material facts that lie in short companypass are thus Kanchana was married to the appellant in the year 1975.
The chemical analyst report and evidence of scene of offence by PW 7.
It was further investigated by S.I., PW 15.
In companyrse of time the appellants father became rich, while her parents family remained poor leading to companystant humilation.
In the meanwhile the police registered the crime.
The police reached the spot at about 12.50 p.m. A.S.I. Jadhao, PW.14 along with Head Constable Sharma, PW 11, companyducted investigation.
R. Lalit, R.K. Jain, Makrand D Adkar, Jamshed Bey and Mrs. V.D. Khanna Advocates for the Appellants.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal is under s.2 of Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
732 of 1991.
It also relied on the report Ex.
V. Vaze and S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents.
PW 10, the Engineer, Electricity Department spoke that there was numbershort circuit the companyduct of the appellant and also the first information report given by A 6, the medical evidence that the death was due to shock and suffocation.
When she was companying out, she heard abuses against the deceased and somebody being beaten.
Sessions Judge, Akola by judgment dated February 10, 1987 acquitted all of them.
The treatment meted out to Kanchana in the presence of Vanmala, followed by beating.
After extending invitations to two or three people when she came back home and was entering into her house, PW 9, her maid servant, came running and told her that Kanchana was dead.
Thereafter she gave information to her father, PW 4, and others at Amravati.
On appeal, the appellant alone was companyvicted under s.302 and s.201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three years respectively by judgment dated October 30, 1991 of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
On September, 3, 1983, PW 5 went to the deceased family at about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m. and invited in her house for which mother in law of the deceased and Kanchana to attend Teej function in her house for which the mother in law refused to accept the invitation and also did number permit Kanchana to attend the function which resulted in exchange of words etc.
125/84, the Addl.
In S.T. No.
Pleader, Shri Desai appeared against the appellant in a bail application and other proceedings.
The appellant along with his parents, sister, maternal uncle and uncles daughter were charged for the offence under s.302 read with s.34 and ss.201 203 read with s.34 I.P.C. of the murder of his wife Kanchana.
PW 6 spoke of the appellants companyduct, companyroborated by PW 8, of standing at the grill gate, which is the only entry into the house an preventing the people to go into the house stating that there was short circuit and to save them indifferent attitude of the in laws and other inmates and keeping mum, their leaving the deceased alone in the third floor in flames emitting of kerosene smell and their number disclosure on inquiry for the cause of the death.
