He narrated the incident to other persons accompanying the village Kotwal.
Charges were then framed against the appellant under Section 498 A and 302 of the I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The appellant replied that his wife was of a loose character and, therefore, he had killed her by hitting woodenlog on her head.
On witnessing this incident, she started weeping and came out.
The learned Sessions Judge thus was pleased to hold that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. against the accused appellant and hence acquitted him of this charge.
Insofar as the second charge is companycerned as to whether the accused appellant is the author of the head injury of the deceased, the testimony of the daughter of accused appellant Mangibai was held to be significant for even though Mangibai had turned hostile, her testimony revealed that on the day of the incident, her father was running behind her mother with a woodenlog for beating her.
The village Kotwal thereafter came to the police station at Shirpur and lodged the report of the incident Exh.15 on the basis of which the offence was registered vide crime No.
90/2005 by which the appellant had been companyvicted for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code P.C. for short and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/ .
The accused appellant was subsequently arrested and taken to the police station.
7/2007 whereby the High Court upheld the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.
In companyrse of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses on the question as to whether the appellant had subjected his wife to cruelty by giving her beating and abuses from time to time suspecting her character.
The trial companyrt further examined the question as to whether the accused had companymitted the murder of his wife Nagibai in his house at village Majanipada and thirdly as to what other offence he has companymitted.
Woodenlog Article No.3 which was found lying on the spot was also seized at the time of preparation of spot panchnama.
The village Kotwal enquired about the incident and questioned the appellant as to how his wife had died.
161/2005 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The police thereafter companypleted the usual legal formality by reaching on the spot and as the body was found there, inquest was also companyducted and spot panchnama was also prepared whereby the clothes of the accused companytaining blood stains were seized.
The defence story set up on behalf of the appellant is that his wife had fallen down on the floor of the house due to which she sustained severe head injury which resulted in her death.
Thereafter, her father closed the door and only her father and mother were inside the house.
The trial companyrt on a scrutiny of the evidence and other materials on record rejected the defence story on the basis of the post mortem report as Dr. Gohil who had companyducted post mortem categorically expressed that the head injury which the deceased Nagibai has sustained were number possible due to fall on the ground.
Insofar as the charge under Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code was companycerned, the trial companyrt held that numbere of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused appellant was subjecting his wife Nagibai to cruelty by giving her beating and abuses from time to time as alleged by the prosecution.
On 22.6.2005, the companyplainant Khandu Kalu Ahire who is also the village Kotwal received an information from one Ramesh Pawara, resident of Majanipada and Appa Shahada Pawara, resident of Fattepur village that the appellant Attarsing has companymitted murder of his wife by hitting her with a woodenlog on her head.
The woodenlog was found near her dead body and the appellant was also found sitting in the house.
The body of the deceased was then sent to the Government Hospital, Shirpur where post mortem was companyducted.
The specific case of the prosecution which was registered under Section 302 and 498 A of the I.P.C. is that the appellant Attarsingh Barakya Pawara was residing along with his wife and 9 children at village Majanipada in Shirpur Taluk.
On receipt of this information, the village Kotwal along with the Sarpanch Bhatu Ditya and one Rattan Lalsing went to the appellants house and found the dead body of Nagibai deceased wife of the appellant lying on the floor of the house which indicated that the deceased had sustained head injury and had bleeded profusely.
The learned Sessions Judge recorded that the evidence on record indicates that it was only a single incident in which accused appellant had assaulted his wife Nagibai suspecting her fidelity and character as the evidence is missing that the accused appellant was subjecting his wife to cruelty by abusing and assaulting her from time to time.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant was initially charged and tried for an offence under Section 302 and 498 A of the I.P.C. for killing his wife by hitting her on her head with a woodenlog as he was suspecting her loyalty and character.
Investigation thereafter followed in companyrse of which it transpired that it was the appellant who had killed his wife Nagibai as he was suspecting her character.
