MANU/MH/3067/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2015

Decided On: 07.09.2022

Appellants: Arjun
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N.C. Garud, Advocate

For Respondents/Defendant: S.D. Ghayal, APP

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates for

the parties finally, by consent.

2. Present appeal has been filed by the original accused, who has been
convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 and
309 of Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Sangamner on 06.03.2014 in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2012.

3 . The prosecution story in the nutshell is that one Tanaji Keru

29-08-2023 (Page 1 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 Kadam, who was the Police Patil of village Pimpri Louki, Ajampur, Tq.
Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar gave report with Sangamner Police
Station on 19.08.2012 stating that around 5.00 a.m. on the same date,
two villagers from his village i.e. Karbhari Ganpat Lawre and Jayram
Lahanu Datir went to his house. They told that a boy by name Sunil
Arjun Datir told them that his mother Latabai is sleeping in the
Veranda (Padvi) of the house, she is not waking up and blood has
oozed out of her head. Tanaji along with other two persons had gone
to the house of Sunil and saw that Latabai was dead. She had
sustained injury to her head and, therefore, on the basis of the said
information A.D. under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
came to be registered. Inquest panchanama was carried out and the
dead body was sent for postmortem. The spot panchanama was also
carried out. It is the further prosecution story that Medical Officer,
Rural Hospital, Sangamner gave MLC on 22.08.2012 stating that
person by name Arjun Gajanan Datir (husband of deceased Latabai)
was admitted to the said hospital and he is in a position to give
statement and, therefore, his statement be recorded. Thereafter, A.S.I.
Madhukar Dadar went to hospital and recorded the statement of Arjun
Datir. On the basis of the said statement, offence under Sections 302,
309 of Indian Penal Code was registered vide Crime No. 137 of 2012.
In the said statement, it was disclosed that when Arjun was along with
his wife Latabai in the house around 10.00 p.m. on 18.08.2012, they
had quarrel on account of character of Latabai and then Latabai had
abused. Then when Latabai went asleep around 11.30 p.m., Arjun had
picked up pickaxe and assaulted on her head. After killing his wife, he
had consumed poison which was used for killing ticks. Even after
consuming that poison, he went to village Aashvi by foot and then
started vomiting. In the said village, he slept on a raised platform, but

29-08-2023 (Page 2 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 in the morning, he boarded a bus from Aashvi to Sangamner and from
Sangamner Taluka Police Station where he had gone, he was referred
to Rural Hospital, Sangamner for medical treatment.

4. After the registration of the offence further investigation was taken

up. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused discovered his
clothes. The clothes of the deceased, accused and other muddemal
seized from the spot were sent for the chemical analysis. In the
meantime, accused was arrested and after the completion of the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed. After the committal of the case to
the Court of Sessions, prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses to
bring home the guilt of the accused. After the evidence, statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
hearing of both sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner
has held the accused appellant guilty of committing offence punishable
under Sections 302 and 309 of Indian Penal Code. He has been
sentenced thus:-

1. Accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in
default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 309 of Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.
1,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for
three months.

5 . Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.C. Garud for the appellant and

29-08-2023 (Page 3 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 learned APP Mr. S.D. Ghayal for the respondent-State.

6 . It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that

the accused has been convicted of committing murder of his wife and
attempt to commit suicide. Though prosecution has examined 10
witnesses, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
P.W. 3-Sunil is the son of the accused and deceased. His testimony
would make it clear that he was not present in the house when the
alleged incident had taken place. He has specifically stated that there
was no dispute earlier between accused and deceased. As per the
testimony of P.W. 3 Sunil he left the house around 8.00 p.m. and
returned at 3.00 a.m. He cannot be said to be a witness on the point of
last seen together. Though he has stated that there was some quarrel
between the parents, it appears that it was patched up and she was
brought to the house. The daughter of the deceased had come for
delivery and she had returned to her matrimonial home about 15 days
earlier. When there was no quarrel or dispute between the accused and
the deceased, there appears to be no motive at all for the deceased to
commit any offence. There is no evidence led by the prosecution to see
what had happened between 8.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m. As per the
testimony of P.W. 3 Sunil, when he saw mother in injured condition,
he had gone to the house of his uncle Dinkar Gajanan Datir, however,
said uncle has not been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1-Tanaji,
the Police Patil, had only seen the incident after he was informed
about the same by two other persons. P.W. 6 Navnath is the brother of
the deceased and he has also stated in the cross that there was no
quarrel between accused and deceased. It has come in the evidence of
P.W. 7-P.I. Sampatrao Bhosale, Investigating Officer that the Veranda
(Padvi) of the house of the accused is open. The house is surrounded

29-08-2023 (Page 4 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 by 7-8 vastis of the brothers and some other persons near the house of
the accused, yet no independent witness has been examined. When
motive is not proved, circumstantial evidence cannot be considered at
all. The weapon that was seized in the matter from the spot is an
agricultural implement, which is available in the house of agriculturist.
P.W. 2 Shankar is the panch to the seizure panchanama, however, he is
not reliable. He says that the panchanama was not signed at the spot,
but after reaching Sangamner Taluka Police Station, police had told
the panchas to sign the panchanama. Accordingly, he had signed it.
P.W. 4-Dr. Wankhede is the Medical Officer, who has admitted
autopsy as well as he is the Medical Officer attached to Rural Hospital,
Sangamner, where the accused was in the hospital. In his cross-
examination, he has admitted that as the accused had consumed
poison, he was admitted in the hospital. But in the second breath, he
has admitted that if a person suffers from food poisoning, then he may
feel giddiness. If a person inhales a spray of pesticides, then such
person also feel giddiness. Therefore, his testimony cannot be relied
upon. The investigating officer has not carried out the investigation
properly. The statement/FIR which was recorded by A.S.I. Dadar i.e.
Exhibit-35 cannot be taken as admission, as it is barred under Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under such circumstance, when there
was no proper evidence on record and the circumstances which were
gathered might have raised at the most suspicion against the accused,
yet the suspicion cannot be taken as proved on commission of a crime.
The learned trial Judge had not considered all these aspects and
wrongly convicted the accused. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be
allowed.

7. Learned APP supported the reasons given by the learned trial Judge

29-08-2023 (Page 5 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 and submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence. P.W. 3 Sunil is the son of the deceased as well as accused,
who had last seen the appellant and the deceased together at 8.00 p.m.
If we consider the postmortem report, it has been stated that the rigor
mortis was present in both upper limbs as well as neck and trunk.
Further, in the postmortem report it is also stated that the death had
occurred within four hours of last meal. P.W. 3 Sunil has specifically
stated that after taking dinner, he went to poultry farm of Yashwant
Datir for work around 8.00 p.m. Though he has not specifically stated
that the parents had also taken dinner with him, yet it can be taken as
the fact in view of the fact that there were only three persons in the
house. Further, from the testimony of P.W. 3 Sunil and P.W. 7 P.I.
Bhosale, who has investigated the matter, it has come on record that
the accused was raising suspicion over the character of the deceased.
This can also be taken note of from the FIR Exhibit-35, which is in fact
confessional FIR. The said FIR is admissible in evidence. Learned APP
relied on the decision in Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar,
[MANU/SC/0079/1965 : 1966 AIR (SC) 119], wherein it has been
held:-

"A statement or confession made in the course of an

investigation may be recorded by a Magistrate under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the safeguards
imposed by the section. Thus, except as provided by Section 27
of the Evidence Act, a confession by an accused to a police
officer is absolutely protected under Section 25 of the Evidence
Act, and if it is made in the course of an investigation, it is also
protected by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
a confession to any other persons made by him while in the

29-08-2023 (Page 6 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 custody of a police officer is protected by Section 26, unless it is
made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. These
provisions seem to proceed upon the view that confessions
made by him while he is in the custody of a police officer are not
to be trusted, and should not be used in evidence against him.
They are based upon grounds of public policy, and the fullest
effect should be given to them."

He further relied on the decision in Bheru Singh s/o Kalyan Singh Vs.
State of Rajasthan, [MANU/SC/0647/1994 : 1994 (2) SCC 467],
wherein it has been held:-

"The fact of giving information to the police is admissible

against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of
Evidence Act, 1872 and to that extent it is non-confessional in
nature but the confessional part of the FIR by the accused to the
Police Officer cannot be used at all against him in view of the
ban of Section 25 of Evidence Act.

A confession or an admission is evidence against the marker of

its so long as its admissibility is not excluded by some
provisions of law. Provisions of Sections 24 to 30 of Evidence
Act of Section 164 Cr.P.C. deal with confession. Inadmissibility
of a confessional statement made to a police officer under
Section 25 of Evidence Act is based on the ground of public
policy. Section 26 deals with partial ban to the admissibility of
confession while Section 27is of the nature of proviso lifting ban
imposed by Sections 25 and 26. Where first information report
is given by an accused himself to a police officer and amounts to
confessional statement, no part of such confession can be

29-08-2023 (Page 7 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 proved in evidence except to the extent it is permitted by Section
27 of Evidence Act."

8 . The further evidence against the appellant is in the form of CA

reports. Blood was found on the clothes of the deceased. Blood group
of the deceased and accused is same. The accused had no injury on his
person. He has not explained in his statement under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure as to how blood was found on his clothes
as well as when the fact was come on record, when he had admitted
because of the consumption of the poison and the specific question
was put to him, he has not tried to explain what prompted him to
consume the poison. This can happen only in guilty minds and,
therefore, this evidence will have to be considered against him. The
injuries on the person of deceased would indicate that it was
homicidal death and then it was followed by consumption of
poisonous substance by the appellant. Therefore, the conviction
awarded to the accused-appellant is just and correct.

9 . At the outset, it is to be noted that from the testimony of P.W. 1

Tanaji, P.W. 3 Sunil, P.W. 4 Dr. Wankhede, it can be seen that death of
Latabai was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report shows four
external injuries, which are thus:-

i) Abrasion of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm over dorsum of right hand.

Blood clots were present.

ii) Abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over left leg below knee. Blood

clots were present.

iii) Abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over left groin. Blood clots were

present.

29-08-2023 (Page 8 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 iv) Penetrating injury of size 2 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm over left gluteal
region, laterally.

All these injuries were antemortem in nature. Out of them, injury Nos.
1 to 3 were simple, but injury No. 4 was grievous in nature. The
inquest panchanama was admitted by the accused and thus, it came to
be exhibited as Exhibit-15. The Medical Officer has opined that the
death of Latabai was due to coma due to intracranial and intracerebral
hemorrhage due to fractured skull due to head injury. The internal
examination have shown multiple fractures to the occipital bone and
the thorax region, especially ribs. All this indicate that death of Latabai
was homicidal in nature. Now, it is required to be seen as to whether
the accused can be said to be the author of those injuries.

10. P.W. 1 Tanaji-informant had given the information, which was

treated as Accidental Death under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. At that time, he was informed by the other two persons that
Latabai was lying in Veranda (Padvi) in injured condition. Though he
went and confirmed about the said fact, it appears that he was not sure
that it was the murder that was committed and, therefore, whatever he
had given the information to police was not disclosing commission of
any offence and, therefore, treated as Accidental Death under Section
174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. The star witness is the P.W. 3 Sunil, who is the son of deceased as
well as appellant. From the testimony of this witness also, it can be
seen that he has not specifically stated that the father has committed
murder of his mother. There was an opportunity to the appellant-
accused to ask few more questions when P.W. 3 Sunil was in the

29-08-2023 (Page 9 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 witness box. It could have been extracted as to why he had not lodged
any report with the police or whether he had suspected that his father
would have committed murder of his mother. Under this
circumstance, though the opportunity was available, it was not so
utilized by the accused. It cannot be raised for the first time at the time
of appeal. A.S.I. Dadar, who had recorded the FIR Exhibit-35, has
stated that after the MLC was received from Rural Hospital,
Sangamner, he had gone to the hospital for recording the statement of
the appellant. When doctor had certified about the fitness of the
accused, his statement has been recorded by this witness. Now, the
thing is that P.W. 5 A.S.I. Dadar is the police officer and if we consider
the FIR Exhibit-35, it states that the accused made statement to the
police that he has committed the murder of his wife by assaulting her
with pickaxe and then he himself had consumed the poison. Learned
Advocate appearing for the appellant says that the FIR Exhibit-35 is
inadmissible in view of bar under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence
Act. However, learned APP says that it is admissible under Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act. The fact which is most important is that
when Exhibit-35 was recorded, appellant-accused was not in police
custody though the police person was recording his statement. What
has been stated in Aghnoo Nagesia (Supra) is that Section 27of the
Indian Evidence Act applies only to information received from a
person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer.
Therefore, in the present case, when the appellant-accused was not
practically in the custody of A.S.I. Dadar, whether that FIR Exhibit-35
can be read in evidence, is a question and we may find answer to this
in Bheru Singh (Supra). In paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the said
decision, it has been observed thus:-

29-08-2023 (Page 10 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 "16. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker
of it so long as its admissibility is not excluded by some
provision of law. Provisions of Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence
Act and of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal
with confessions. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under no
circumstance is admissible in evidence against an accused. The
section deals with confessions made not only when the accused
was free and not in police custody but also with the one made
by such a person before any investigation had begun. The
expression "accused of any offence" in Section 25 would cover
the case of an accused who has since been put on trial, whether
or not at the time when he made the confessional statement, he
was under arrest or in custody as an accused in that case or not.
Inadmissibility of a confessional statement made to a police
officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is based on the
ground of public policy. Section 25 of the Evidence Act not only
bars proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police
officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer
but also the admission contained in the confessional statement
of all incriminating facts relating to the commission of an
offence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act deals with partial ban to
the admissibility of confessions made to a person other than a
police officer but we are not concerned with it in this case.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is in the nature of a proviso or an
exception, which partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 25
and 26 of the Evidence Act and makes admissible so much of
such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates to the fact thereby discovered, when made by a person

29-08-2023 (Page 11 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 accused of an offence while in police custody. Under Section 164
Code of Criminal Procedure a statement or confession made in
the course of an investigation, may be recorded by a Magistrate,
subject to the safeguards imposed by the section itself and can
be relied upon at the trial.

17. Where the first information report is given by an accused

himself to a police officer and amounts to a confessional
statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of
the Evidence Act. No part of the confessional statement can be
proved or received in evidence, except to the extent it is
permitted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The first
information report recorded under Section 154 Code of Criminal
Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. It may be used
to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence
Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act
in case the informant appears as a witness at the trial. Where
the accused himself lodges the first information report, the fact
of his giving the information to the police is admissible against
him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence
Act and to the extent it is non-confessional in nature, it would
also be relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act but the
confessional part of the first information report by the accused
to the police officer cannot be used at all against him in view of
the ban of Section 25 of the Evidence Act."

Therefore, when in this case the present appellant-accused had

disclosed about the circumstances in which he had assaulted his wife
and he himself had consumed the poison, then such information by

29-08-2023 (Page 12 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 him to the police officer, though the proof of such confessional
statement is prohibited by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, is
admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of
the Indian Evidence Act and to that extent, it is non confessional in
nature. It would also be relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.
This conduct of the accused can also be seen from the statement of
P.W. 8 A.S.I. Baliram Ghorpade, who was on duty on 19.08.2012. He
has stated that accused Arjun had gone to police station around 9.00
a.m. and disclosed P.W. 8 Baliram about the fact of consuming poison
and, therefore, he had referred the accused to Rural Hospital,
Sangamner for treatment by giving police memo Exhibit-30. Except
denial, there is nothing in his cross. We will have to consider the cross
of P.W. 4 Dr. Wankhede, at this stage. He is the Medical Officer who
had given treatment to accused and it has been extracted in his cross-
examination that the accused had consumed poison for which he was
admitted to the hospital. Thereafter, other two suggestions have been
given regarding food poisoning and inhaling of pesticides, but those
suggestions are contrary to what was extracted earlier. Further, he has
also stated in the cross that when the accused was brought to the
hospital, he was conscious. Therefore, Exhibit-30 and Exhibit-35 are
admissible to the extent of they are non confessional under Section 8
of the Indian Evidence Act. These pieces of evidence are against the
accused and they have been rightly considered by the trial Court.

12. Coming to the next point P.W. 3 Sunil has stated that his father
was addicted to liquor and ganja and he used to raise suspicion over
the character of the mother. Even his father was beating his mother
during night time. A month prior to the incident, his father has
assaulted mother and his mother had gone to her parental house in

29-08-2023 (Page 13 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 the same village. She resided at the parental house for about 15 days
and, thereafter, P.W. 3 Sunil has brought her, as his sister was
supposed to come to their house for delivery. After the delivery, his
sister had returned back. He has another brother, but then he says that
on the day of incident, his brother had gone to village Dhangarwadi,
Tq. Rahata at the place of sister. P.W. 3 Sunil had gone to college
around 7.30 a.m. and returned around 12.00 p.m. His mother had also
gone for work and returned around 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. Then, he had
dinner and he went to work in the poultry farm of one Yashwant Datir
at 8.00 p.m. He has specifically stated that thereafter only parents
were at the house. He returned around 3.00 a.m. on 19.08.2012. He
found the dead body of his mother lying in the house. There was injury
to the head of his mother and left hand was fractured. He found one
pickaxe lying under the cot. He also found bottle containing poison to
kill ticks lying there. He went to the house of his uncle-Dinkar Datir
and informed the incident. Uncle also saw the dead body. Further, he
has specifically stated that when he had returned at 3.00 a.m., his
father was not in the house. In the cross-examination, nothing has
been brought, which could destroy the story told by him. In his cross,
he has stated that the relations of his maternal uncle with his father
are not cordial. Even if those relations are not cordial, it cannot be said
that, that is the motive for the maternal uncle P.W. 6-Navnath to
depose against the accused. P.W. 3 Sunil has specifically denied that
there was no quarrel between his mother and father in his presence,
but then he admits that neither he himself nor mother had lodged any
complaint against father. But then he also admits that prior to the
incident that about a month, there were no quarrels in a family. This
might have happened since the daughter had come for delivery, but it
cannot be construed that the quarrels those used to take place earlier

29-08-2023 (Page 14 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 were resolved completely. Definitely, his evidence would clarify that
the accused was still taking suspicion over the character of the
deceased. This has been also stated by P.W. 6-Navnath. The fact that
about a month prior to the incident Latabai had gone to her parental
home and stayed there for 15 days and thereafter, she was fetched by
the son, has not been denied in the cross of P.W. 3 Sunil. P.W. 3 Sunil
has further stated that the distance between poultry farm and his Vasti
(House) is near about one and half kilometers. He has admitted that
there are 5 to 7 Vastis of his brothers and some other persons near his
Vasti. In fact, word Vasti is used for the house which is built in the
farm, that means all those Vastis were in the farm and it cannot be
confused with the house either in village or in town, which are
adjacent to each other. When these are in a way farm houses away
from each other in their respective farms, we cannot expect that a
person will hear the noise and he was rushed immediately. Therefore,
this admission cannot be interpreted in the way the learned Advocate
appearing for the appellant intends. In the cross, in fact, a death blow
has been given by asking a question on behalf of the accused and the
answer is that when P.W. 3 Sunil reached home around 3.00 a.m. no
other person had come to his house prior to him. In fact, it could not
have been within the knowledge of P.W. 3 Sunil as to whether any
person had visited his house in his absence. There was no point in
asking this question, yet it was asked. The answer is given and he
states that no other persons had come prior to his arrival. For the
theory of "last seen together" requires proximity in time. When P.W. 3
left house, it was 9.00 p.m. and as per the postmortem report the
death had occurred nearly four hours after the last meal. If these two
things are read together, then it can be seen that there was sufficient
proximity of time to import the doctrine of last seen together. It was

29-08-2023 (Page 15 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 not necessary for the prosecution to explain whether anybody else
would have come between 8.00 p.m. to 3.00 a.m. We can consider that
around 8.00 p.m. even the accused and deceased had their dinner. The
non confessional part of Exhibit-35 can be now thus considered,
wherein it has been stated that on whole day on 18.08.2012 accused
was at home. The wife had gone for labour work and returned around
7.00 p.m. She prepared food and then he himself, wife and Sunil had
dinner and then Sunil left for poultry farm. He and Latabai went to
sleep in the Veranda (Padvi) around 10.00 p.m. and then the quarrel
started between them. Thus, the said statement under Exhibit-35 that
the accused, his wife and son Sunil had dinner together at 8.00 p.m.
has been proved by the prosecution and the death has occurred within
4 hours after 8.00 p.m. That is the sufficient proximity taking into
consideration the fact that at the time when Sunil left only the
deceased and the accused were the persons in the house. That is the
strong circumstantial evidence against the appellant.

13. The accused has not explained in his statement under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to under which circumstance he
was admitted to hospital and was treated for consuming poison.
Except that false case has been filed against him, he has not given any
other answer. Definitely, there is room to believe that due to the guilty
mind after committing murder of wife, accused would have consumed
the poison which was available in his house for killing ticks. That
bottle was found at the spot so also the murder weapon. The murder
weapon can be co-related to the injuries those were found on the
person of the dead body and which have been explained by P.W. 4 Dr.
Wankhede.

14. The CA reports would indicate that on the clothes of the deceased

29-08-2023 (Page 16 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 there was blood. On the Payjama of the accused, there were blood
stains. It is of blood group AB and the blood group of the deceased is
AB. Therefore, this is another circumstance which is going against the
appellant.

1 5 . In State of Maharashtra Vs. Vilas Pandurang Patil,

[MANU/MH/1388/1998 : 1999 Cri.L.J. 1062], this Court has held:-

"We wish to emphasise that this is not what the law of

circumstantial evidence requires. It requires:-

(a) the circumstances should be firmly established;

(b) Cumulatively they should unerringly point out to the

guilt of the accused;

(c) they should wholly be inconsistent with the inference

of the innocence of the accused;

(d) they should be incapable of being explained on any

other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the
accused.

We wish to emphasise that in case of circumstantial evidence, it

has to be seen whether the circumstances in totality and not in
isolation, lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused. If in
totality, they lead to such an inference then, it is of no
consequence that independently they do not establish his guilt."

This principle has been later on affirmed in many other cases also.
Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances,

29-08-2023 (Page 17 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 which are brought on record, it can be seen that the accused is the
author of the crime. Further as regards the motive is concerned,
testimony of P.W. 3 Sunil and P.W. 6 Navnath is sufficient to infer that
the accused used to raise suspicion over the character of Latabai. He
was addicted to liquor and it appears that he was not doing anything
to earn. When Latabai had gone for work and it appears that she as
well as P.W. 3 Sunil were working and earning, it would have had
impact on the mentality of the accused and then he had started raising
suspicion over the character of wife. In this connection, in Sheikh
Jahangir Ali Vs. State of Maharashtra, [MANU/MH/1593/2000 : 2001
(2) Mh.L.J. 67], this Court had observed that:-

"Motive is always locked in the heart of the accused and it is

well known dictum that even devil may not know the thoughts
of man motive, no doubt, assumes importance in a case resting
on circumstantial evidence, yet the absence of motive is not fatal
if the circumstantial evidence is established with cogent
evidence."

16. We reiterate that in certain matters clear motive may not emerge,
but the circumstances would be strong to indicate the guilt of the
accused. Under such circumstance, absence of motive will not be fatal
to the prosecution case. The journey of evidence thus leads us to
conclude that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. After committing the murder of his wife
Latabai, the accused had tried to commit suicide by consuming poison
which is certainly an offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penal
Code and, therefore, the conviction awarded to the appellant by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge is legal and correct. It does not
require any kind of interference. Since the appeal is devoid of merits, it

29-08-2023 (Page 18 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi
 deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

29-08-2023 (Page 19 of 19) www.manupatra.com Librarian Tada Law Faculty, University of Delhi