Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Harish Ramesh Pulekar, was convicted by the I/c Adhoc District Judge-I, Thane in Sessions Case No.382 of 2006 for the murder of his wife, Yogini, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with a default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment. The appellant appealed against this conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant and the deceased were married. On the day of the incident, the appellant was last seen with the deceased in their house. Later, the deceased was found dead with burn injuries and strangulation marks. The prosecution established motive through evidence of marital discord and dowry demands. The recovery of a kerosene can and matchbox from the appellant's possession, along with medical evidence confirming death due to strangulation and burns, formed the chain of circumstances. The court found that the circumstances were consistent only with the guilt of the appellant and rejected the defence of alibi. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - Last Seen Theory - Recovery of Articles - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, recovery of a kerosene can and matchbox, and medical evidence. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed to the guilt of the appellant. (Paras 1-29) B) Criminal Procedure - Conviction - Section 235(2) CrPC - Sentencing - The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 235(2) CrPC. The court upheld the sentence. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- motive
- last seen theory
- recovery of articles
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 235(2) CrPC
