HC awards life sentence to man for killing wife

Relying on the testimony of a child, the Bombay High Court has confirmed the life sentence imposed on a man for killing his wife brutally with a pestle on New Year's eve in 2003.
The court observed that there was no merit in the case and dismissed an appeal filed by the convict, Kanu Kharvi, against a sessions court order awarding him life imprisonment.
A bench of justices Sadhana Jadhav and P V Hardas said the convict had inflicted head injuries on his wife Rajashri resulting in instant death, in the presence of his child.
The deceased was mercilessly battered by the pestle and the grinding stone. She had sustained as many as ten injuries, out of which six wounds were on account of the battering by the pestle or the grinding stone, the court further observed.

The medical evidence indicated that it was a case of homicidal death. The neighbours of the deceased heard her shouts and gathered outside the house. When the door was opened they found Rajashri lying in a pool of blood on the floor, the appellant sitting on a cot and the child weeping.
The child, Akash, walked out of the house to go his maternal uncle's house nearby. He was accompanied by two neighbours Arun Sayaji and Arun Vaidya. Akash told the duo about the quarrel between his parents and also about his father battering Rajshri with a pestle in a fit of rage.

The forensic evidence also indicated that the appellant had killed Rajashri. The pestle and the grinding stone were stained with blood of 'O' group, which was the same blood group with which the clothes of deceased were found stained.
The court said the appellant had offered no explanation as to how his wife had sustained head injuries and died. He had also not disputed the allegations that he was present in the house when his wife was found dead by his neighbours.
"The chain of circumstances, therefore, is so complete that they point unquestionably to the appellant and no other hypothesis is possible, save and except that it is the appellant and he alone who has committed the crime. According to us, therefore, the finding of guilt arrived at by the trial court needs no interference," the judges said in a recent order.