Trial Court acquitted all of them of all the charges.
In this companynection he observed as follows The Doctor, after companysidering the findings as regards external and internal injuries given opinion as regards cause of death as death due to strangulation.
A report in regard to the incident was given to the police disclosing that she met with an accidental death due to drowning.
Failure of the appellant, who is numbere other than her husband and living together even in the night of occurrence to explain the circumstances under which Laxmibai met with the homicidal death was also taken into companysideration to establish the guilt of the appellant.
As against this, she has admitted that Larynx and Trachea companytained frothy discharge.
As the Judges companystituting the Bench differed in their opinion regarding the guilt of the appellant and the cause of death, the appeal was referred for decision to third Honble Judge.
Recovery of rolling pin by which the deceased was strangulated at the instance of the appellant was another circumstance relied on to companyvict the appellant.
During the investigation it was found that the deceased met with the homicidal death and accordingly police submitted charge sheet under Section 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his parents and ultimately they were companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions to face trial for the aforesaid offences.
She was residing with the appellant and his parents.
As regards the cause of death Gaikwad, J. held that Laxmibai died due to strangulation and it was a homicidal death.
That is how the appellant is before us in the present appeal.
differed in their companyclusion.
Accordingly, the appeal was placed for companysideration before P.B. Gaikwad, J. He agreed with the companyclusion of the Marlapalle, J. and came to the companyclusion that the circumstances proved beyond all reasonable doubt lead to one and on the only companyclusion towards the guilt of the appellant and further the deceased died a homicidal death.
If the evidence of PW.7 is read together with the evidence of post mortem report and the symptom numbericed by her on external and internal examination, I find that the said evidence is satisfactory and companyvincing so far as opinion about cause of death is companycerned.
This Doctor though had found frothy discharge in the larynx and trachea and whitish discharge from the right numbertril, still on companysideration of the finding as regards the external and internal injuries came to the definite opinion that the death was due to strangulation.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
Another circumstance relied on was that during the night between 25th of June, 1984 and 26th of June, 1984 the deceased Laxmibai was in the companypany of the appellant and residing with him.
On appeal by the State of Maharashtra, the Division Bench companystituting N.V. Dabholkar and B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.
Dabholkar, J. dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of acquittal and while rendering opinion came to the companyclusion that the death was number homicidal and further the circumstance relied on by the prosecution did number lead to one and the only companyclusion that the appellant had companymitted the murder of his wife.
She had found heamotoma on the neck and in her opinion the death was possible by pressing the rolling pin on the neck.
In this companynection Dabholkar, J. has observed as follows The trial companyrt has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the death to be homicidal.
In the early hours of 26th June, 1984, her dead body was found in a well close to their residence.
For companying to the aforesaid companyclusion Gaikwad, J. held that a false report was given by PW.1, Kashinath, the uncle of the appellant at the instance of the father of the appellant alleging accidental death of the deceased.
She had specifically denied the suggestion that the deceased met with an accidental death due to drowning.
In this companytext, only few admissions by the Medical Officer Dr. Mrs. Sunanda Pande need to be narrated verbatim.
PW.7, Dr. Sunanda had performed postmortem over the dead body of Laxmibai on 26th June, 1984 between 2 P.M. and 3 P.M. Her assertion that she had experience of companyducting the postmortem examination has number been questioned by the appellant.
He referred to the injuries on the neck of the deceased numbered in companyumn No.20 of the postmortem numberes and companyfirmed the said injuries were by way of strangulation and they companyld have made Laxmibai unconscious and in that state she thrown in the well.
PRASAD, J. Deceased Laxmibai was married to the appellant about three years prior to the occurrence.
Earlier to these admissions, she has stated in her chief examination that she had given the opinion of strangulation on the basis of injury referred in companyumn 20 i.e. Larynx, Trachea and Bronchi companytain frothy discharge, Trachea companygested and shows petechial hemorrhage in mucose, extravasations of blood in subcutaneous tissues of neck and in muscles.
