Absence of an FSL report is not fatal where circumstantial evidence independently completes the chain of guilt.

The appellant was married to the deceased, Shabana Arif Shaikh, and they resided together in a rented room at Junnar, while their two sons lived with the deceased’s father for education.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant was addicted to alcohol, frequently quarrelled with and assaulted the deceased, and suspected her character.

At approximately 2:00 a.m. on 20 June 2011, a neighbour heard the appellant and deceased quarrelling and heard the sound of utensils from their room.

The deceased was found dead in the room the following morning, with multiple head and facial injuries, a protruding tongue, and a blood-stained stone grinder nearby.

The post-mortem evidence attributed the death to haemorrhagic shock and intracerebral bleeding caused by severe head injuries.

The appellant was absent from the room and later raised a plea of alibi, claiming that he had gone to Devalali because his mother was ill, but he produced no supporting evidence.

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The appeal challenged the conviction principally on the ground that the prosecution case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, that the last-seen circumstance was not established, and that the absence of the FSL report weakened the prosecution case.

Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered the deceased under Section 302 IPC?

Whether the circumstances of motive, the appellant’s cohabitation with the deceased, the last-seen circumstance, and the homicidal nature of the death were sufficiently proved?

Whether the absence of the FSL/Chemical Analyzer report constituted a fatal gap in the prosecution case?

Whether the appellant’s plea of alibi and failure to explain the injuries suffered by the deceased entitled him to the benefit of doubt?

The court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, governing punishment for murder.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be firmly established, must point unerringly towards the accused’s guilt, and the circumstances cumulatively must form a complete chain inconsistent with the accused’s innocence, as stated in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra.

Where a wife suffers an unnatural death in the matrimonial home and the husband was present or ordinarily resided there, the husband must offer a credible explanation for the injuries; failure to do so is a strong incriminating circumstance.

The court also relied on Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra for the principle that the husband must explain an unnatural death occurring in the matrimonial premises.

The absence of an FSL report is not necessarily fatal where the remaining evidence independently establishes guilt; forensic evidence is corroborative and its absence does not break an otherwise complete chain.

Minor inconsistencies do not automatically destroy a circumstantial-evidence case, provided the prosecution evidence satisfies the court’s judicial conscience.

The court found the motive proved through the consistent evidence of the deceased’s father, neighbour, and the neighbour’s husband that the appellant consumed alcohol, quarrelled with the deceased, assaulted her, and suspected her character.

The medical evidence established that the death was homicidal, as the deceased had extensive ante-mortem head injuries, intracerebral haemorrhage, and fractures that could have been caused by the seized stone grinder.

The appellant’s cohabitation with the deceased was established through witness testimony and his own answer under Section 313 CrPC admitting that they lived together at Junnar.

The neighbour’s evidence that she heard the couple quarrelling at about 2:00 a.m., coupled with the discovery of the deceased’s body in the room the next morning and the appellant’s absence, established the appellant’s presence with the deceased shortly before the death.

The appellant’s alibi was unsupported by evidence, and he gave no explanation for the serious injuries inflicted on his wife inside their shared dwelling.

Although the prosecution did not produce the FSL report, the court treated it as corroborative and held that its absence did not undermine the independently established chain of circumstances.

The seizure of the blood-stained grinder, knife, quilt, and clothing further supported the prosecution case, although the conviction did not depend exclusively upon the unproduced forensic report.

The court found the motive, homicidal death, cohabitation, last-seen circumstance, and the appellant’s failure to explain the death and injuries sufficiently established.

The absence of the FSL report was held not to be fatal.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default, were upheld.

The criminal appeal was dismissed and any pending applications were disposed of.