ORDER
1. In regard to a charge of murder the appellant was tried by the learned 2nd additional sessions judge, Thane and was found guilty of the same and punished under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The said conviction and sentence having been upheld by the High Court, judicature at Bombay, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was married to one Pushpa @ Priya who is the deceased in this case, and there being certain marital discord on the night of 20/21st March, 1994 the appellant is alleged to have strangulated the said deceased Pushpa in their house situated at Shradha Saburi Chawl, Thane.
3. The prosecution case further is that on the date of the incident the appellant, the deceased and the deceased's two daughters, by her first marriage, Smita PW2 and Sarika PW-3 had slept in tht room. The next morning when PWs. 2 and 3 woke up, they found the appellant missing from the room and their mother was lying dead with bleeding from her ears. When PWs. 2 and 3 tried to go out to seek help of the neighbours, they found the house locked from outside and when they shouted for help their neighbours came near the house but found the door of the house locked. It is the further case of the prosecution, at about that time the police came to that place with the appellant and opened the door of the house. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant after having committed the murder had gone to his house and confessed to his father that he had committed the murder of his wife and ex-pressed his desire to commit suicide. Therefore with a view to prevent him from taking such (sic) term step PW1 and another neighbour PW-6 took the appellant to the police who recorded the first information as per the statement of PW1. It is also stated that when the police arrested the appellant, they found some injuries on his fingers which was examined by the doctor PW-8 who opined that the said injuries could be caused by biting.
4. This is a case where the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. So far as the death of the deceased being caused by strangulation is concerned, there is no denial. The courts below relied upon the following circumstances to prove the appellant's guilt:
(a) Deceased Pushpa and accused were last seen together on the intervening night of 20/21.3.1994.
(b) In the morning the accused was found missing from the said house and the house was found locked from outside.
(c) Iron chain was found lying on the cot by the side of the dead body of the deceased.
(d) Extra judicial confession.
(e) Injuries on the person of the accused.
5. Learned counsel Mr. M.D. Adkar contended before us that the circumstances like the recovery of the chain which was used allegedly in the strangulation and reliance on extra judicial confession made to the doctor PW-8 cannot be relied upon because so far as the recovery of panchnama is concerned, the same is not proved according to law and so far as the confession to the doctor is concerned, the same having been made after the appellant was arrested, it could not be relied upon. He submitted that in the background of the fact that PWs. 1 and 6 have turned hostile the links in the chain of circumstanced are broken, therefore, the circumstantial evidence cannot be relied upon for the purpose of basing a conviction.
6. For the sake of the argument, we will exclude these two circumstances relied upon by the court and having done so we will still notice from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, it is clear that on the night of the incident the appellant was sleeping in the room and in the morning, unlike the normal practice, the appellant was missing that too having locked the house from outside. The body of the deceased was found where she had slept with the appellant. The injury on the fingers of the appellant also probabilises his involvement in the crime, if these circumstances are established beyond all doubts then they form a chain of circumstances by themselves which, in our opinion, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant.
7. So far as the PWs. 1 and 2 are concerned, there is absolutely no motive to implicate falsely the appellant. Their presence at the place of incident cannot be doubted and nothing has been established in the cross-examination to doubt their statement. The factum of the house being locked from outside is again proved beyond doubt from the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and the investigating officer. The injury on the accused is proved by the evidence of PW-8 which the doctor says could have been caused by biting. These circumstances are sufficient, in our opinion, to prove the guilt of the appellant. The courts below have appropriately analysed the evidence and have found the appellant guilty though along with certain other circumstances. In our considered opinion even if the search and seizure along with extra judicial confession is excluded, rest of the circumstances which in our opinion, is proved beyond reasonable doubt is'suf-ficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
8. In the said view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. Therefore, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.