1 (Sessions Case No.

22/2018) J

Presented on ­ 07/04/2018.
Registered on ­ 09/04/2018.
Decided on ­ 06/11/2020.
Duration ­ Y­2, M­7, D­0

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, BARSHI.

( Before Ajitkumar B. Bhasme, Ad­hoc Sessions Judge­I, Barshi )

Sessions case no. 22/ 2018

Exh. 35
[CNR :MHSO21­000290­2018]
The State, through
Police Station Officer, Prosecution.
Pangari Police Station.

Versus

Mahesh Bharat Misal.

Age – 24 years, Occ.­ Private Job. Accused.
R/o­ Khamaswadi, Tal. Kalamb,
Dist. Osmanabad.

The charge u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

–­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Appearance :
Adv. S. S. Mahindrakar, A. P. P for the prosecution.
Adv. M. S. Thobade, advocate for the accused.
–­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

JUDGMENT
( Pronounced on 6th November, 2020. )

1. The accused having been prosecuted for the offence

punishable u/s. 302 of The Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of prosecution case, are as under :

2. The informant Dadasaheb Mahadev Fugare, R/o Kombadwadi,
Tal. and Dist. Osmanabad lodged report on 03.01.2018 alleging that,
her daughter Manisha was married to accused on 07.05.2017 resident
of village Khamaswadi which is adjacent to village Kombadwadi. The
 2 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

accused and deceased Manisha were residing at Pune for earning their
livelihood. The deceased used to call up the informant. He noticed that,
she was under pressure while calling. On asking she used to tell him
that, the accused frequently talks with one unknown woman. On asking
about her, he used to keep her quite.

3. On 02.01.2018 at 10.30 A.M., accused and deceased Manisha

came at village Kombadwadi. The informant insisted them to have
lunch. But accused told him that, they were going to have lunch at the
home of his sister at village Pathri, Tal. Barshi and they will return in
the evening. On that day at 5.30 p.m., accused called up the informant
and informed that, they are returning to village Kombadwadi. At 6.30
p.m. the informant called both accused and deceased Manisha, but they
did not receive call. Then he himself and villagers namely Shrihari
Bhoite, his brother in law Ramchandra Misal and nephew Bharat Fugare
started proceeding towards pathri for their search by boarding in Maruti
Omini vehicle owned by Pintu Kale. At 10.00 p.m. they reached to
Ganesh Dhaba situated at Yedashi. They met the cousin of accused
Bablu and two unknown persons. On asking one person out of two told
them that, he will show the motorcycle, which was in damaged
condition. Accordingly, the said person asked to take said vehicle
towards Yedeshwari Devi temple. They found that, the motorcycle of
accused was lying at the distance of 4 to 5 feet near the road, at the
distance of 1 ½ km. from Yedeshwari devi temple, on road which leads
to village Pangari. Thereafter they went 400 to 500 ft. inside the forest
and found corpse of deceased Manisha and blood was oozing from
head. The accused has killed his wife Manisha on account of his illicit
relations with one woman. Accordingly, the informant lodged report.

4. Pangari Police have registered Crime No. 01/2018 punishable

u/s.302 of The Indian Penal Code and handed over investigation to
 3 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

investigation officer. The I.O. prepared spot panchnama, inquest

panchnama of corpse of deceased. He sent corpse for postmortem. He
also prepared memorandum and seizure panchnama with the help of
two panchas. He obtained autopsy report of deceased. Statements of
witnesses came to be recorded. He sent seized clothes and blood sample
to The Regional Forensic Laboratory at Pune for analysis. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the
accused in the Court of learned JMFC Barshi on 02.04.2018.

5. As the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the I.P.C. is exclusively

triable by Sessions Court, the learned J.M.F.C., Barshi committed the
case to this Court.

6. My learned Predecessor framed charge (Exh. 02) against the

accused. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to
him in vernacular. He pleaded not guilty to it and claimed to be tried.
His defence is of false implication and of total denial and attack by
unknown persons due to dangerous driving of motorcycle.

7. The prosecution has examined in all 04 witnesses in this case

which are as under ;
P.W.­1 Informant Dadarao Mahadev Fugare at Exh. 11.
P.W.­2 Annasaheb Digambar Patil, at Exh. 20.
P.W.­3 Dr. Prafull Vishnupant Dhabekar, at Exh. 21.
P.W.­4 Dhananjay Sawataram Dhone, at Exh. 22.

8. The defence admitted following documents ­

1. Advance certificate about the death of deceased Manisha

Mahesh Misal at Exh. 13.
2. Spot panchnama Exh. 14 (where dead body found)
3. Inquest panchnama Exh. 15.
4. Seizure panchnama of clothes of deceased Manisha Exh.23.
5. Postmortem report of deceased Manisha Ex. 18.
 4 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

9. The statement of the accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be

recorded vide Exh. 32. He has denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses in toto. However he filed written say at Exh. 33, wherein he
contended that, he had no love affair with any woman. On 02.01.2018
he and deceased had gone to meet his sister at village Patri. While
returning they were willing to take glimpse of goddess Yedeshwari.
Therefore, they were coming via Patri, Pangari, Ukkadgao to
Yedeshwari temple. When they reached a spot which was 1.5 km prior
to temple, two unknown persons came on two wheeler motorcycle from
opposite side. They drove motorcycle rashly and negligently. Therefore,
scuffle took place in between them and said persons. The said persons
beaten them severely. They sustained grievous injuries. He was
admitted in Civil Hospital, Osmanabad by unknown persons. Later on
he came to know that, his wife died due to said injuries.

10. I have heard learned Adv. Mahindrakar A.P.P. for the State and
defence Adv. M. S. Thobade for the accused.

11. In the light of charge against the accused, evidence lead by

prosecution, statements of accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and submissions
across the bar by both the advocates, the following points do arise for
my determination. I have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons
stated below :­

POINTS FINDING
1. Whether prosecution proved that, on
02.01.2018, in between 5.30 p.m. to 11.00
p.m., in the forest at the distance of 400 to
500 ft. towards East, from the road
proceeding towards Yedeshwari temple
from village Ukkadgao, which is at the
distance of 3 km. from village Ukkadgao,
Tq. Barshi, the accused intentionally and
 5 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

knowingly caused the death of deceased

Manisha by means of stone and knife and
thereby committed offence punishable u/s.
302 of the Indian Penal Code ?
… In the affirmative.

2. What order ? … As per final order.

REASONS

AS TO POINT NO. 1 :­
12. During the evidence the P.W.­1 Dadarao reiterated all the
contents of FIR. He proved his report Exh. 12. In evidence also he stated
that, accused had love affair with unknown woman and it is accused
who killed his daughter while returning from his sisters village Pathri in
forest, situated on Ukkadgao to Yedeshwari Temple road.

13. During the course of cross examination he stated that, after

marriage the deceased had visited his home on the festivals of Diwali,
Laxmi etc. She used to stay there for some days. During her stay he had
not asked about her life. She had also not told about it. The accused
also visited his home three to four times after his marriage. He had
visited home of accused at Pune only once prior to two to three months
from incident. He cannot tell when deceased Manisha had told him
that, accused was calling up frequently to one woman. Neither deceased
Manisha nor he lodged report in respect of it nor filed case in the Court.
There was crowd on 02.01.2018 to Yedeshwari Devi temple as there
was Pournima (full moon day). The articles belonging to deceased
Manisha and accused were scattered near dead body of Manisha. The
spot where dead body of Manisha was lying cannot be seen from road.
Govt. District Hospital at Osmanabad is at short distance from spot of
the incident.
 6 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

14. P.W.­2 Annasaheb Patil is panch witness on memorandum as well

as seizure panchnama. He deposed that, on 07.01.2018 he and Kotwal
Arun Gaikwad had been to the police station. The accused gave
memorandum in their presence regarding incident. The accused stated
that, 'on the day of incident, while returning from his sister's home on
Yedeshwari Pangari road, he stopped his motorcycle at the distance of 3
km. from Ukkadgao, he took his wife inside at the distance of 400 to
500 ft in the forest and killed her'. “He is ready to produce
Mangalsutra and cell phone of deceased as well as knife from the
spot where placed” (Marathi deposition prevails). Accordingly police
recorded memorandum panchnama in their presence. Thereafter they
along with accused and police went in the Govt. vehicle, on the spot
situated on Pangari to Yedeshwari road at the distance of 3 km. from
Ukkadgaon. The accused asked to stop said vehicle at the left side of
road. They went 450 ft. inside the forest from the left side of said road.
“The accused shown them cell phone, Mangalsutra and knife by
removing foliage”. The police seized the same under panchnama. He
identified the knife shown to him, which is at Article 'A'. He identified
the accused stating that, the accused who was in police custody and
given memorandum in his presence is present before the Court. He
identified gold mangalsutra shown to him, which is at Article 'B' and
cell phone handset at Article 'C'.

15. In cross examination he stated that, he had asked police why they
called him at police station. At that time they told him that, the accused
was going to show instrument of offence and he has to prepare
panchnama. On that day he had not talked with the accused but only
police officer. He denied that, there were only one type of trees near the
spot of incident. The road which starts from village Ukkadgaon to
Yedeshwari temple is having vehicular traffic. The said area is Ghat.
Anybody can reach on the spot of incident by said road.
 7 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

16. P.W.­3 Dr. Prafull Dhabekar, medical officer, who examined

accused, deposed that, on 02.01.2018 he examined accused Mahesh
Misal and issued medical certificate Exh. 17. The injuries mentioned in
it may be possible by self infliction. In cross examination he stated that,
injuries mentioned in Exh. 17 may be possible in assault. Further he
stated that, he has not mentioned in remark column of Exh. 17 that,
injuries may be possible by self infliction. Moreover he admitted that, he
found multiple contusions on chest of accused.

17. P.W.­4 Dhananjay Dhone deposed that, on 02.01.2018 he found

dead body of one female in the forest by the side of road on village
Ukkadgaon to Yermala road. He prepared inquest panchnama of corpse
(Exh. 15). Father of deceased lodged report at Pangari Police Station.
He prepared spot panchnama (Exh. 14). He recorded statements of
witnesses. He seized clothes on the corpse of deceased under seizure
panchnama (Exh. 23). He also seized clothes of accused worn by him at
the time of incident under panchnama (Exh. 24). He suspected why
accused was admitted in hospital at Osmanabad instead of nearer
hospitals at Barshi, Yermala and Pangari. During the course of
investigation it is revealed that, the accused killed his wife as he was
having illicit relations with another woman.

18. The accused while in police custody stated that, he will produce
cell phone, mangalsutra and knife concealed by him in the forest.
Accordingly he prepared memorandum panchnama. He further stated
that, he had concealed said articles in forest and ready to produce the
same. Accordingly he went to said place with panchas and accused
produced the said article in presence on panchas. The said
memorandum is at Exh. 25. The deceased was pregnant. He has sent
viscera of deceased to C.A. at Pune and foetus to V. M. Medical college
 8 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

at Solapur. He relied on office copy of letter sent to C.A. Pune vide Ex.
26 and foetus sent to V.M. Medical college at Exh. 27. Learned J.M.F.C.,
Barshi has recorded statement of mother of deceased u/s. 164 of Cr.P.C.
He got prepared sketch map of spot of incident through Circle Inspector
Revenue, which is at Exh. 16. The Chemical Analysis Report of clothes
of deceased is at Exh. 28. The opinion given by medical officer about
injury sustained by deceased is at Exh. 13. He has also obtained medical
certificate of accused. During investigation he found that, the accused
travelled instead short distance from village Pathari to Kombadwadi via
Kuslamb, Pangari, Yedashi, Tadwala (40 to 50 km) or another route
Pathari, Yermala, Yedashi, Tadwala (38 to 40 km) but travelled by long
route. The spot of incident is situated on the border of village Yermala,
Barshi and Pangari. The nearest police station is Yermala but spot of
incident is situated within the limits of Pangari police station. There is
police chowki in Civil Hospital, Osmanabad.

19. In cross examination he stated that, on 02.01.2018 he had been

near the dead body for approximately two hours. He had made search
about the suspicious articles surrounding the dead body. On 03.01.2018
he was on the spot of incident for approximately two hours and made
search of articles. After panchnama of spot of incident, he had not
deployed police persons on the spot of incident. The Yedeshwari temple
is nearer to spot of incident. In memorandum panchnama the accused
had not stated that, the spot from which he will produce cell phone set,
knife and mangalsutra, there is rush of devotees on full moon day at
Yedeshwari temple. He does not know whether there was full moon day
on the day of incident. The big civil hospital nearer to spot of incident is
at Osmanabad. He has not recorded statement of medical officer who
provided medical treatment to accused.
 9 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

20. At the outset it is pertinent to mention here that, the case of

prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is
necessary to mention guidelines given by Hon’ble Apex Court in number
of decisions, while analyzing circumstantial evidence.

(A) In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar V/s. State of M. P. AIR 1952 SC 343

laid down that, following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against and
accused can be said to be fully established;
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.

2. It may be noted here that, this court indicated that, the

circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved ' and 'must be or should be
proved' as was held by this court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs
State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC
2622) where the following observations were made:
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may be
guilty before a court can convict and the mental
distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.”

3. The facts so established should be consistent only with the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty.

4. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency,

5. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to

be proved, and

6. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave

any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
 10 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

7. Those five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the

panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence.

(B). In Deonandan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 801, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, it will be seen that, while
taking into account the absence of explanation or false explanation
did not hold that, it will amount to be an additional link to
complete the chain, but these observations must be read in the light
of what this court said earlier, viz before a false explanation can be
used as a additional link, the following essential conditions must be
satisfied.
1. Various links in the chain of evidence laid by the prosecution
have been satisfactorily proved.

2. The said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with

reasonable definiteness and,

3. The circumstance in proximity to time and situation

(C) The Hon'ble Apex Court has given material principles in the case of
Sharad Badrichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC
1622 for evaluating circumstantial evidence. Said principles are as
under :­
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency;
 11 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one

to be proved, and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to

leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.

(D)The learned advocate for accused relied on ratio laid down in

Kali Ram V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773.
Wherein, Their Lordships of Apex Court have observed that,
“the cardinal principle of administration of
justice for criminal cases is that, a person arraigned
as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless
presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by
production of evidence as may show him to be guilty
of the offence with which he charged. The burden of
proving the guilt of accused is upon the prosecution
and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts
cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused.”

The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that,

“If the circumstantial evidence such a nature
that, there are two views possible, one is pointing to
the guilt of the accused and another is pointing
towards innocence then view favourable to the
accused should be adopted.

21. Considering above guidelines, now let us again come to the

evidence of prosecution and observe, whether there is chain of
evidence, which fully establish guilt of accused?

22. The defence has admitted the version of case of prosecution, i.e.
till accused and deceased reached up to the spot on incident. Defence
has admitted accused and deceased had gone to the village of
informant. Thereafter they went to the village Patri, Tal. Barshi to meet
sister of accused. While returning they were coming via Pathri, Pangari,
 12 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

Ukkadgao to Yedeshwari temple and they reached at the distance of 1.5

km from Yedeshwari Temple.

23. Therefore, there is no dispute about the chain of circumstantial

evidence till accused and deceased reached at the above mentioned
spot.

24. However from here versions or stories of prosecution and defence

differ. Case of prosecution is that, accused has committed murder of his
wife as he was having extra marital relations with another woman.
While accused has come with defence that, unknown persons due to
sudden quarrel in the way, assaulted him and his wife and killed her.

25. As per prosecution case, the accused killed his wife as he was
having illicit relations with another woman. (Motive) The learned
Advocate for accused vehemently argued that, the prosecution has not
proved the motive behind the alleged crime. Therefore, there is break to
the chain to the circumstantial evidence.

26. Now about motive. ''Motive means something which permits a

man to form and intention to commit an act, meaning thereby, the
motive is a desire and crime is a desired accomplishment''. Since
motive is always hidden in the mind of culprit which is psychological,
phenomena. Therefore, it is difficult to crack it. By keeping in the mind
psychological aspect, the evidence on motive is to be understood and
appreciated. The motive is to be gathered from variety of circumstances.

27. The informant i.e. father of deceased at the time of lodging report
specifically mentioned that, the deceased had informed him, the
accused was talking frequently with one woman and he used to keep
 13 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

deceased quite on asking by her. So there is no reason to infer that, the

informant falsely after thought mentioned the motive behind the
alleged offence. The learned advocate for accused argued that, the
prosecution has not brought on record, the name of the woman with
whom the accused was frequently talking. The accused and deceased
were living at Pune and informant only once visited their home.
Therefore, it is not expected that, the informant should know name of
said woman. The defence has not cross examined the informant on same
point.

28. Moreover defence has taken by the accused that, neither

informant nor deceased lodged report against accused regarding his
talking with another woman. However report of that nature cannot be
lodged. Someone talks someone on phone is not definitely a crime.
Moreover no woman or father­in­law will lodge report against husband
or son­in­law on such reason.

29. Moreover prosecution has rightly relied on ratio laid down in case
of Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1992 SCC (3) 106, wherein
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that,
''in circumstantial evidence when facts are clear it is
immaterial that, no motive has been proved. Failure to
discover the motive of offence does not signify the non
existence of crime. The failure to discover motive by
appropriate clinching evidence may be a weakness in the
proof of prosecution case, but it is not necessarily fatal as
a matter of law''.

30. In Suresh Chandra Bahri V/s. State of Bihar 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 80, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,
“if motive is proved that would supply a link in the
chain of circumstantial evidence, but the absence thereof
cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.”
 14 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

31. Therefore from the above facts and circumstances, motive of

accused seems clearly. However its non proving is not fatal to the case
of prosecution if sufficient evidence led by prosecution.

32. The accused while in police custody gave memorandum (Exh.25)

in presence of panchas. The accused stated that, he will produce knife,
mobile handset and mangalsutra of deceased. Accordingly he produced
one yellow coloured mobile handset, one mangalsutra at 10 ft. eastern
side from the spot of incident distance and near the stem of Shevari
(Sesbania bispinosa) tree by removing foliage and soil and turned back
and produced one knife having small handle by removing soil (The
same is exhibited as Exh. 25). The accused in his memorandum though
not specifically stated place where he had said articles concealed, but he
stated that, he will show the spot where the same are placed. If there is
forest it is not expected to state particular place where the said articles
were concealed, but only to see that, the person has knowledge about
the said place. Therefore, as per this court it will make no difference by
non mentioning particular place in memorandum of the accused while
he was in police custody. It is pertinent to note that, in examination in
chief Annasaheb Patil (P.W.2) panch of the recovery of panchanama
specifically mentioned that, the accused has given memorandum in his
presence. In cross­examination, the defence has not asked specific
question in respect it. But asked question that, on that day he had not
talked with the accused.

33. The Learned advocate for accused vehemently argued that, the
investigation officer had been on the spot of incident consecutively for
two days for two hours prior to panchanama of spot of incident.
However he has not noticed said articles on the spot of incident.
Therefore, there is doubt on the recovery of said articles. However this
 15 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

Court has to mention here that, the said articles are produced after
removing the foliage and soil by accused and same were situated at the
distance of 10 ft. from the spot of incident. Therefore, question does not
arise about suspicion of recovery of said articles. Moreover, it is
pertinent to note that, whatever found on the spot of incident, except,
discovery by accused, is recovered under panchanama which is
admitted by the defence( Exh. 14).

34. The Learned A.P.P. has rightly relied on ratio laid down in,
Paramjitsingh @ Kake s/o. Harteksingh Soundh Vs The State of
Maharashtra 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 1079, wherein Hon'ble Bombay High
Court observed that,
''there is no force in doubt raised by defence
about the recovery of bloodstained instrument of
offence and gold ornaments because the said place
was already searched by police as evidence of panch
witness shows that, the same were concealed in a loft
of wall, which was not visible from floor. As the
places of recovery were in exclusive knowledge of
accused''.

35. Learned A. P. P further relied on ratio laid down in, “Arvind

Singh V/s. The state of Maharashtra, 2020 All M R (Cri.) 3035 S.C.”
Wherein, their lordships of Apex Court have observed that,
“the investigation officer has discovered the
incriminating facts at the instance of accused leading
towards the guilt of the accused. Discovery of other
incriminating facts are also pointing towards the
guilt of the accused.”

The Lordship further observed that, “in

criminal case, the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and section 106 of the Evidence Act is
certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. The
burden lies on the accused to prove that, he did not
commit the murder. Because who could know better
than he whether he did or did not. He must furnish
an explanation that appears to the court to be
 16 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such

an explanation on the basis of facts within his special
knowledge, the burden casts upon him u/s. 106 is
not discharge.”

36. The defence has admitted inquest panchanama (Exh. 15). On

perusal of same it appears that, there was one injury 4 cm x 2 cm
behind right ear and there is one another injury on left side of head
above the left ear. There are four injuries on parietal region of head
above left eye. There was no injury on chest and stomach.

37. Defence has admitted postmortem of deceased (Exh. 18). The

cause of death is shock due to injury to vital organ brain with associated
injuries.

38. The accused admitted the spot of incident (Exh. 14) where dead
body was found, map of spot of incident (Exh. 16). The said spot of
incident is situated at a distance of 2 k.m. on Ukkadgaon to Yedeshwari
temple and at the distance of 450 feet from main tar road in the forest.
Motorcycle of accused bearing No. MH­25/Y­8508, Hero Honda make
was lying at the distance of 350 feet from the spot of incident
mentioned in Exh. 14. The dead body of deceased Manisha is found on
the spot of incident and not on the road, where scuffle took place
between accused and unknown riders where as per defence his
motorcycle was lying. Further story of accused is that, he became
unconscious in said assault and some unknown persons admitted him at
Civil Hospital, Osmanabad for treatment.

39. On perusal of panchanama of spot of incident (Exh.14) the spot of

incident is situated in forest at the distance of 3 km from village
Ukkadgaon and on the road which leads to Yedeshwari Temple from
village Pangari and at the distance of 450 feet eastern direction from
 17 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

said tar road. There is south north ditch (Chari) at the eastern side of
spot of incident. The spot of incident was scrubbed (खखररळलललल). There
was blood scattered. There is one Shevari (Sesbania bispinosa) tree at
the distance of six feet from spot of incident. One white colour Banyian
was tagged to said Shevari (Sesbania bispinosa) tree. There is one
bloodstained stone near stem of said shevari (Sesbania bispinosa) tree.
There was one white coloured silver painjan (chain) in said chari. There
are seven red and yellow coloured pieces of bangle in soil. There is one
faint yellow coloured shirt at the distance of 3 feet from the spot of
incident. There is one pair of ladies chappal at the distance of 5 feet
from the spot of incident. There is one bloodstained scarp. There is one
blue and white coloured Nike make shoes at the distance of 10 feet and
another shoe at the distance of 15 feet and waist belt at the distance of
20 feet from the spot of incident. One gray coloured leather wallet
having red border containing Adhaar card, pan card of having name
Mahesh Bharat Misal (accused). One Hero Honda make black
coloured motorcycle bearing registered no. MH­25/Y­8508 was lying at
the distance of 350 feet in western direction from the spot of incident.
All articles are seized under panchanama. It is pertinent to note that
spot of incident is admitted the defence.

40. The prosecution also proved the statement given by accused while
in police custody in presence of panchas vide Exh. 25, i.e., “come with
me I will show where the cell phone set, money mangalsutra of my
wife and knife concealed”. Accordingly, police have seized the above
mentioned articles under panchanama. So his statement in police
custody confirmed by subsequent event. (Section 27 of The Evidence
Act). [PULIKURI KOTTAYYA Vs. EMPEROR (A.I.R. 1947 P.C.67)]

41. As per postmortem report, the injuries mentioned in coloumn

no.17 are as hereunder;
 18 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

1. Incise wound just above the left eyebrow 1.5 cm x 1 cm

having clear cut margin reverted, underlying tissues are
cleanly divided, blood vessels are cut across, straight caused
by sharp cutting edge weapon. Age of injury is more than 12
hours.
2. Contusion lacerated wound just above injury no. 1, 3cm x 4
cm, scull deep, age of injury is more than 12 hours, caused by
hard and blunt object. Ragged irregular and bruised margins,
underlying tissues are unevenly divided.
3. Incised wound present over left parietal region 1cm x 0.5 cm
clear cut and reverted margins, underlying tissues are clearly
divided, blood vessels are cut across, straight caused by sharp
cutting edge weapon, age of injury is more than 12 hours.
4. Incised wound present over the right temporal region of
scull, 4cm x 2cm clear cut and reverted margin, underlying
tissues are clearly divided, blood vessels are cut across,
straight caused by sharp cutting edge weapon, age of injury is
more than 12 hours.
5. Pressure abrasion present over left shoulder joint, anteriorly
5cm x 6cm irregular surface object, age of injury is more than
12 hours.
6. Pressure abrasion present posteriorly at left knee joint 2 cm x
2cm, irregular surface object, age of injury is more than 12
hours.
7. Pressure abrasions present left medial aspect of left forearm
and elbow joints 2 cm x 3 cm irregular surface object.
42. The injuries no. 1 to 7 are antemortem. Cause of death is shock
due to injury to vital organ, brain with associated injuries.

43. As per postmortem report injuries to the deceased had caused by

sharp cutting edge weapon. It is not defence of accused anywhere that,
 19 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

the unknown persons were having sharp cutting weapon and they
assaulted them by said weapon. Moreover it is amazing that, unknown
persons only assaulted to the deceased by said weapon and not to the
accused.

44. As per forensic report filed vide Exh. 28, 30 and 31 blood group
of deceased and accused is 'A'. (Blood groups of both accused &
deceased is same)

45. Now let us see whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is

completely proved or not by prosecution and whether additional link
proved by prosecution or not ? The Prosecution has well proved that,
a) On 02.01.2018 at 10.30 am accused and deceased Manisha had
come to the house of informant at village Kombadwadi.
b) On same day they both proceeded towards the village Pathri to have
lunch at the home of sister of accused, on motorcycle of accused.
c) On same day at about 5.30 p.m. accused had made telephonic call to
the informant and informed that, they are returning to village
Kombadwadi.
d) Again on same day at about 6.30 pm informant called to both
accused and deceased Manisha. However they both did not receive call.
e) While searching accused and deceased Manisha, informant and
others found motorcycle of accused lying at the distance of 4 to 5 ft.,
near the road, at the distance of 1 ½ km. from Yedeshwari Devi Temple,
on road, which leads to village Pangari.
f) On 400 to 500 ft. inside the forest they found corpse of deceased
Manisha i.e. away from the spot, where so called scuffle happened
between accused and unknown riders.
g) As per inquest panchanama (Exh. 15), there was injury 4 cm x 2 cm
behind right ear and there is another injury on the above the left ear.
There is injury under left eye and four injuries on left parietal region
 20 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

above left eye. There is red black injury on the neck.

h) As per postmortem report, the injuries mentioned in column no. 17,
i.e., injuries no. 1 to 7 are antemortem by sharp edged weapon.

46. The injuries sustained by accused are possible by only hard and
blunt object while injuries sustained by deceased caused by sharp edged
weapon and hard and blunt object. As per defence of accused, he also
could have been sustained shard edged injuries. The accused has not
given explanation about articles recovered from the spot of incident
(Exh.14). Therefore, as per this court, the prosecution proved that,
there is no question of killing deceased Manisha by none other than the
accused.

47. Thus obviously murder or death of deceased is fact especially

within the knowledge of accused only. As per section 106 of The
Indian Evidence Act, onus to prove fact especially within the
knowledge turns towards accused. To prove said facts, accused has
given written statement/explanation u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus by
analysis of circumstances and story of accused, it has to decide, whether
story brought by accused trustworthy ?

48. As per written statement filed by accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. vide
Exh. 33. Two unknown persons were riding on one motorcycle. They
were driving motorcycle in their possession endanger to human life.
Thus scuffle took place between him and them. In said incident, the said
unknown persons started beating him and beaten his wife also, when
she intervened the quarrel. According to accused the said spot of
incident is situated on Ukkadgaon to Yedeshwari Temple, just 1.5 km
prior to Yedeshwari temple.
 21 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

49. Considering above defence/story of accused few question arise.

1. Why did the unknown person take dead body of deceased

Manisha in the forest at some distance from the spot of incident
(i.e. where scuffle took place) and left accused unconscious on
the very same place only?

2. Thereafter question arises why did unknown persons admit only

accused to Civil Hospital at Osmanabad. Why they have not
mentioned their names at hospital? Why have they taken the
accused at Civil Hospital at Osmanabad, though hospitals at
Pangari, Yedashi, Barshi are nearer from spot of incident than
Osmanabad ?

50. Moreover accused has not given explanation about the presence
of his shirt, banyan, wallet containing pan card, adhar card and chappal
of deceased on the spot of incident. Accused had not explained, whether
unknown persons had made him shirtless and had he gone or taken
without shirt and banyan to the hospital. As per accused that was full
moon day and various devotees were visiting the Yedeshwari temple.
Then question arises, why does not anyone see the incident. These
questions have remained unanswered. The accused has not mentioned
approximate time, when that scuffle took place. If it was dark and head
lights of both motorcycle were on, then there is no question of driving
dangerously. The story put forth by accused is definitely not appears
probable.

51. On perusal of medical certificate (Exh.17) (Admitted by

accused) of the accused, it appears that, it has mentioned therein that,
patient had come 'self'. Then why accused is stating that, unknown
persons admitted him in Civil Hospital, Osmanabad. If it is presumed
that, he was unconscious, when he reached or brought to the Civil
Hospital, Osmanabad, why did not he inquire about his wife, after
getting conscious, even there is police chowki in the campus of Civil
Hospital, Osmanabad. Most important question arises that, why
 22 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

unknown persons did not admit deceased Manisha with accused in Civil
Hospital, Osmanabad and even did not inform police about her. These
unanswered questions also shows story of accused concocted.

52. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra, it is observed

by Hon’ble Apex Court that,
“A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial
merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge
also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape.
Both are public duties”.

Further it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex

court that,
“In a case based on circumstantial evidence
where no eye­witness account is available, there is
another principle of law which must be kept in
mind. The principle is that when an incriminating
circumstance is put to the accused and the said
accused either offers no explanation or offers an
explanation which is found to be untrue, then the
same becomes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances to make it complete”.

53. In “Arvind Singh case cited (supra) Their lordships of Apex

Court have further observed that,
“in criminal case, the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and section 106 of the Evidence Act is
certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. The
burden lies on the accused to prove that, he did not
commit the murder. Because who could know better
than he whether he did or did not. He must furnish an
explanation that appears to the court to be probable and
satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation
on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the
burden casts upon him u/s. 106 is not discharge.”

54. Few more observations are as hereunder;

1. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the

incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the
evidence is to be considered ­ to use the words of Lord
 23 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

Mansfield in Blatch v. Archer (1774) 1 Cowp. 63 at p.65

"according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to
prove, and in the power of the other to have contradicted". Since
it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible for the
prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the
knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to
prove them as part of its primary burden. (para 31).
2. On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the
burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned;
and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse
inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the
presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the
Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in
favour of that person, & in the result prove him guilty (para 32).
3. Even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be
intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section
would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has
succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can
be drawn regarding death. The accused by virtue of their special
knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the Court
to draw a different inference. (para 15)

55. Considering explanation about facts especially within the

knowledge, brought by the accused in statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and
questions arisen as above, it is crystal clear that, accused has offered
untrue explanation. Accused had failed to establish or explain facts
within his special knowledge. Accused failed to offer an explanation,
which might lead the Court to draw a different inference. Thus an
adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with
the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, as observed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trimukh (Cited Supra) it becomes an
additional link in the chain of circumstances brought by the
prosecution, to make it complete.

56. Though the accused has failed to establish facts within his special
knowledge untrue and thus it is an additional link to the chain of
circumstances brought by the prosecution, the story does not end here.
 24 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

57. As mentioned above defence/story putforth by accused to prove

fact especially within his knowledge is untrue. Moreover previous and
subsequent conduct of accused after incident also has to take into
consideration.
Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 reads
as, ''Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct — Any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue
or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of any
agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in
reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to
any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the
conduct of any person an offence against whom is the
subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct
influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and whether it was previous or
subsequent thereto”.

58. At the outset it is pertinent to look previous conduct of accused.

Firstly accused had to the maternal home of deceased i. e. Kombadwadi.
There informant asked him and deceased to have lunch. However
accused stated that, they were going to have lunch at home of his sister
at village Pathari, Tal. Barshi. After returning from village Pathari he
had chosen another way than regular way. These facts show that,
something was going on in his mind.

59. Now subsequent conduct of accused has to consider. According to

accused few unknown persons admitted him in unconscious condition.
However on looking to the medical certificate Exh. 17, admitted by
accused it appears that, accused had admitted himself. Said conduct of
accused shows he wants to hide something. Moreover after getting
conscious he had not inquired about his wife nor lodged report against
unknown motorcyclist, even after he came to know about death of his
wife. Said subsequent conduct of accused also shows he wants to hide
death of his wife.
 25 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

60. It is pertinent to note that, Dr. Prafull Dhabekar (P.W.­3) deposed

that, the injuries mentioned in Exh. 17 may be possible by self
infliction. To establish said opinion of P.W.­3, the prosecution has relied
on text in the book 'Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence,
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology', wherein on page no. 4.24
SECTION IV described that, 'Self inflicted injuries are also known as
factitious injuries, forged or fabricated wounds or invented injuries,
these are injuries produced by a person on his body or caused by
another acting in agreement with him. The object is to support a false
charge against another person with an ulterior motive or to avert
suspicion from ownself.

61. The fabricator usually produces only that much injury as he thinks
necessary to confirm his story. He is careful to avoid any serious harm
to himself. The injuries are therefore, usually multiple, superficial and
not situated on vital body parts.

62. Since the fabricator rarely injures himself through his clothes, an
examination of his clothes is very valuable when such suspicion exists.
Even when the clothes are damaged, they are damaged in a way
incomplete with the number, length, direction and nature of wounds.

63. The injuries sustained by accused are not caused by sharp edged
weapon (Exh. 18). While injuries on dead body of Manisha caused by
sharp edged weapon. On perusal of evidence of Dr. Prafull (P.W.­3),
medical certificate of accused (Exh. 17) and nature of self injuries as
mentioned above in Parikh's book, it is crystal clear that, injuries
sustained to the accused were self inflicted injuries.

64. Additional link brought by prosecution as under;

a) Accused chosen long route to reach village Kombadwadi from village
Pathri, at evening time, when wife was with him.
 26 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

b) Accused admitted himself at Civil Hospital, Osmanabad at 11.00 p.m.

(Ref. Ex. 17). But he neither searched his wife nor inquired about her.
Even not informed his father in law by calling up.
c)Till today, accused has not filed report against unknown persons, who
killed his wife or narrated their appearance, number of motorcycle etc.
d) There was strong motive to the accused to kill deceased Manisha i.e.
love affair with unknown woman.
e) Suspicious previous and subsequent conduct of accused i.e. as
mentioned in para Nos. 58 and 59.
f) Injuries sustained to the accused are not caused by sharp edged
weapon. While injuries of deceased Manisha are caused by sharp edged
weapon (Ref. Ex. 18).
g) P.W.­3, Dr. Praful opined during evidence (Exh. 17) that, injuries
sustained to the accused could be ‘self inflicted injuries’.
h) Accused produced knife by removing foliage and soil at the distance
of 10 ft. eastern side, from the spot of incident (Ref. Exh. 25)
i) Explanation given by accused for things within his special knowledge
i.e. death of wife, is not at all justifiable and probable.
j) Certainly prosecution has to prove its case. However burden to prove,
things within his special knowledge was on accused (u/s 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872) by preponderance of probabilities. The same
is not discharged by accused.

65. Looking to the nature of death of deceased and other

circumstances, there is much scope to conclude that, accused had
murdered deceased by pre­plan. First of all when accused had wanted
to visit his sister, why did he firstly go to the house of informant. He
could have gone thereafter visiting his sisters home also. But it was in
the plan of accused to show everything is going on well between him
and deceased. Then while returning from sisters village again
intentionally he made phone call to informant. He took long distance to
 27 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

return at the time of evening. Corpse of deceased found at the long

distance from road, which was not seen from the road. It shows accused
took her in the forest and it was plan of accused to make story that,
people who saw him only admitted him in hospital. Things of accused
and deceased had scattered around the corpse, shows someone made it
intentionally. Amazing is that, shirt and banyan of accused found on the
spot i.e. taged to the tree. Recovery of knife at the instance of accused
shows, his prior intention. At the last untrustworthy explanation of
accused shows part of his plan.

66. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trimukh

Maroti Kirkan vs State Of Maharashtra that,
“Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence
of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth
of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law
of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from
certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact
from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of
reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable
position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in
India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It
empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it
thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall
have regard to the common course of natural events, human
conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case”. (para 33)

67. In that regard let us see what would have natural events and
human conduct in present case. First of all no one will chose long
distance to travel in the forest at the time of evening, with wife.
Secondly, just on the altercation unknown people won't commit murder
of other unknown, especially of woman. After committing murder,
murderer will not pull body up to distance of 400 to 500 ft in the forest.
They will only run immediately. After getting conscious from the
incident of assault any husband firstly will ask about wife. He will
immediately lodge complaint. He will narrate appearance of accused.
 28 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

He will take all efforts to punish murderers of his wife. However such
natural events and human conduct is absent in present case, which also
falsify the story of defence by accused.

68. Defence advocate relied on ration led down in Mahesh Laxman

Kore Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1986, wherein it
has been held by Hon'ble High Court that,
'Accused who was charged with murder of his wife was
last seen together at 8.15 pm, the accused complained to
witness that, his wife was missing, he did not produce
photograph of his wife in order to file police complaint. He
did not approach police immediately after his wife was found
missing. Discovery of dead body of at the instance of accused.
These circumstances by themselves were not sufficient to
connect accused to the homicidal death of his wife'.

69. Defence advocate further relied on ration led down in Shiri @

Shrikant Ramchandra Vs. State of Goa, wherein held by Hon'ble High
Court that,
''the accused was on enemical term with deceased because
deceased was having illicit relationship with mother of accused.
The same was not stated even on second and third day of
incident. But stated in supplementary statement. In such case
where the evidence is very weak motive was of a special
significance to the prosecution, if prosecution failed to prove the
same certainly it does break one link in the chain of the
circumstances.

With due respect, above rulings are not at all helpful to the
defence.

70. To sum up, the chain of circumstances is established by the

prosecution. With due respect, Hon'ble Apex Court, ratio laid down in
Kali Ram case (supra) is not applicable to case in hand.

71. However defence has to bring exact story to relieve burden u/s.
106 of The Indian Evidence Act. There is additional chain of
 29 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

circumstances as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Trimukh (Cited supra). Therefore, as per this Court, prosecution has
proved required chain of circumstances. Additional chain of
circumstances shows that, it is only accused who has committed murder
of his wife, with smart pre­plan. Medical evidence is also against the
accused. The circumstantial evidence and additional link (Ref._
observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Trimukh (Cited
supra) placed on record show that, in all human probabilities the
murder must have committed by the accused. As per this court, the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore this
Court hold guilty to the accused for murder of his wife Manisha.
Therefore this court record finding of point no. 1 in the affirmative.

72. I take pause to hear the parties on the quantum of sentence.

Digitally signed
Ajitkumar by Ajitkumar
Baburao Baburao Bhasme
Date: 2020.11.06
Bhasme 12:32:16 +0530

(Ajitkumar B.Bhasme)
Date : 05/11/2020 Ad­hoc Sessions Judge­1, Barshi.

73. The learned A. P. P. argued that, the accused has committed

murder of his wife in cool, calculated and clandestine manner. He
committed brutal murder of his wife, therefore, the case comes under
rarest rare case. Therefore, death punishment may be be imposed. The
Hon'ble Apex Court laid down guidelines, which cases come under
rarest of rare case in,
1. Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957

74. In Machhi Singh Case, cited (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that, as part of the "rarest of rare" test, the court should address itself as
to whether ,
 30 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

"(i)there is something uncommon about the crime which

renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls
for a death sentence;

(ii)the circumstances are such that thre is no alternative

but no impose death sentence even after according maximum
weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in
favour of the offender"
The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that,
(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted
except in gravest cases of extreme culpability;
(ii) Before opting the death penalty the circumstances
of the “offender” also require to be taken into consideration
along with the circumstances of the “crime”.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is
an exception. In other words death sentence must be imposed
only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant
circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided,
the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot
be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature of
circumstance of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage
and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating
and the mitigating circumstances before the option is
exercised”.

75. Now, turning to the case in hand, after going through the
evidence on record as per this court, the accused murdered his wife as
he was having affair with a woman by using knife and stone. Thus
having considered all the facts and circumstances on record as per this
court present case falls short of the “rarest of rare” case where a death
sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the accused. Therefore, it is
necessary to impose sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.
25,000/­ for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Therefore, this court proceed to pass the following order.
 31 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

ORDER
1. Accused is hereby convicted vide Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C of
the offence punishable u/s. 302 of I.P.C and he is sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life and shall pay fine of Rs.
25,000/­. In default to pay fine he shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six (6) months.

2. Muddemal property as mentioned in charge sheet at serial no.

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 17 being worthless, be
destroyed after appeal period is over.

3. Muddemal properties as mentioned hereunder be returned to

the original/registered owner, after appeal period is over.
1. Muddemal at serial no. 3 silver ankle (पपजण),
2. Muddemal at serial no. 11 Adhar card and pan card of
Mahesh Bharat Misal,
3. Muddemal at serial no.12 White coloured samsung
mobile bearing IMEI no. 353202/06/401724/02,
4. Muddemal at serial no. 15 Black coloured Splendor
motorcycle bearing registration no. MH­25/Y­8508
engine no. HA10 EJCHM61780 Chasi no. MBLHA
10AMCHM 45442,
5. Muddemal at serial no. 18 one gionee yellow coloured
mobile bearing IMEI No. 861872031566802, and,
6. Muddemal at serial no. 19 Gold mangalsutra.

4. Muddemal property at serial no. 20 (article­A) knife having

11 inch in length be sent to the District Magistrate, Solapur
for disposal according to the law.

5. The accused is in Jail since 04­01­2018, he is entitled to set

off u/s. 428 of Cr.P.C.

6. The copy of this judgment be given to accused free of costs.

Ajitkumar Digitally signed by
Ajitkumar Baburao
Baburao Bhasme
Date: 2020.11.06
Bhasme 12:32:06 +0530

(Ajitkumar B.Bhasme)
Date : 06/11/2020 Ad­hoc Sessions Judge­1, Barshi
 32 (Sessions Case No. 22/2018) J

CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this PDF file judgment/order is word to
word as per the original judgment.

a) Name of Stenographer : Kanaki P. N.

b) Court : Ad-hoc Sessions Court Barshi
c) Date of order : 06.11.2020
d) Judgment/order signed by PO on : 06.11.2020
e) Judgment/order uploaded on : 06.11.2020