Observing that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Bombay High Court has upheld the life sentence awarded to a 38-year-old man who had killed his wife by hitting her on the head with a ceiling fan rod.
Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and P V Hardas, hearing an appeal filed by Dinesh Sharma, a resident of suburban Mulund, against his conviction by a sessions court in 2007, said the prosecution had proved that the appellant had killed his wife Manju as relationship between the two were strained.
“Deceased Manju died a homicidal death in the house of the appellant. There is no evidence that any intruder had entered the house and committed the offence. No report in this behalf has been lodged by the appellant and the evidence does not indicate forced entry by any intruder,” said the court.
“In any event, no motive is alleged for any intruder to commit murder of deceased Manju. The relations between Manju and the appellant were strained and this has been established by the prosecution witnesses,” the judges observed last week.
The court further said that the appellant has admitted his presence in the house at time of incident. In his statement before the court, the appellant does not even remotely state that he was not present in the house. The appellant has not taken any defence and also has not offered any explanation whatsoever, the bench said.
“The shirt of the appellant was found stained with blood which matched with the blood group of the deceased. The appellant thus has taken a false defence, which can be used as an additional circumstance,” the judges said while dismissing his appeal against conviction.
The bench said the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that it was Sharma who had inflicted injuries on Manju’s head and caused her death. The case of the appellant does not fall under any of the exceptions to section 300 of IPC, it said.
“There is no evidence about grave and sudden provocation nor there is any evidence about sudden fight and appellant inflicting any injuries on deceased Manju in fight and in the heat of anger. The appellant too has not claimed benefit of any exceptions under this section,” the bench said.