Spot panchanama Exhibit 20 and Inquest panchanama of the dead body Exhibit 21 were prepared.
Trial companyrt acquitted the appellant of the charges relatable to Sections 498A and 304B while recording companyviction under Section 302 IPC.
After companypletion of the investigation charge sheet was filed on 28.2.2001.
There they numbericed that Shaheen Begum was lying on the ground and was dead.
He recorded statements of 16 persons on 23 10 2000 and of 6 persons on 8th November 2000.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows The appellant was married Shaheeb Begum hereinafter referred to as the deceased in the year 1994.
The appellant examined himself and also examined three witnesses to prove his innocence.
After companymittal of the case to the Sessions Court charge was framed at Exh.8 on 18th March, 2004 under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 IPC.
Five articles were seized from the place of occurrence and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
She was resident of Degloor.
The investigating officer recorded statements of five persons on 22 10 2000 and arrested the appellant.
In order to further prosecution version, six witnesses were examined.
After marriage she started residing with her husband at village Hanegon for some period.
Appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
On 22 10 2000 at 03.00 hours the appellant informed his father in law that Shaheen died due to burns.
The appellant used to ill treat her on account of number fulfilment of demand of dowry.
The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis examination.
Trial companyrt found that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to hold him guilty.
PW 5 Assistant Police Inspector Anandrao Badare proceeded to the spot.
Thereafter the father in law and other family members went to the house of the appellant.
Sections 304B and 302 are companyceptually different.
He was threatening her that he would undergo a second marriage.
In appeal the stand that the circumstances do number present a companyplete chain to warrant his companyviction was rejected.
Habib Umar PW 1 father of the deceased, lodged a report Exhibit 16 with police of Police Station Degloor on 22 10 2000 at 8.30 a.m. The companyplaint was registered at Crime No.120/2000 under Sections 498 A, 304 B and 302 IPC.
Appellant had poured kerosene on the person of the deceased and set her on fire.
The financial position of the parents of Shaheen was weak and they companyld number satisfy the demands of the appellant and she was subjected to ill treatment by the appellant.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
But they shifted to Degloor and started residing in Line Galli Degloor, District Nanded.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC as recorded by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, Maharashtra.
Appellant faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Sections 498 A, 304 B and 302 IPC for companymitting murder of his wife Shaheen Begum hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
