Sanjay Ware, the informant, lived on his farm with his wife Vaishali (dead), two kids, and one daughter. Before the occurrence, the appellant, Accused No. 1 Sachin Chavan, had been working in his sector for one and a half years. Vaishali had provided Sachin with a phone number so that they could communicate about his agricultural job. Sachin was supposed to have grown an evil eye for her. Sachin had tried to offend Vaishali's modesty around two months prior to the incident, and she had hit him with her slippers. Sanjay and Vaishali have both asked Accused No. 1 not to come to their residence since then. He did, however, try to keep in touch with Vaishali. Vaishali had gone to the weekly market in Karanji at 9.00 a.m. on January 8, 2013, but she never returned. Sanjay and his brother-in-law searched for Vaishali for two days but were unable to locate her. Sanjay reported himself missing at Pathardi Police Station on January 11, 2013. Sanjay realised that he had received a call from his wife, Vaishali's, cell phone. The call was traced back to accused no. 1 Sachin Chavan. The Pathardi Police apprehended accused no. 1 Sachin at Nepti Naka on January 16, 2013. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that both appellants accused took deceased Vaishali with them under the guise of going to the Vruddheshwar valley shrine. After that, they killed Vaishali by breaking her head with a stone.
The prosecution case, according to learned counsel for the appellant-accused, is wholly based on circumstantial evidence, and there is no direct proof in this case. Sanjay was said to have filed the missing report after a long period of time. Sanjay made no accusations or stated any suspicions towards Sachin in the aforementioned missing report. It was claimed that the dead body was in a deteriorated state with facial deformities. As a result, the body's personal identity could not be determined. Despite the fact that one Mangal sutra was found, there is no proof that it belonged to Vaishali.
Learned Counsel claims that the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was murdered and that Sanjay correctly recognised the body based on her earrings, Mangal sutra, scarf, and slippers. It was argued that Accused No. 1 Sachin had a compelling reason to murder Vaishali. Sachin had been beaten by Vaishali, and he carried a grudge towards her as a result. Finally, she was spotted alive in the weekly market with Sachin from about 11 a.m. until 11.30 a.m.
Observation of the Court:
The court noted that the dead body, in this case, had not been properly identified. Vaishali would not go on accused Sachin's motorcycle at the packed weekly market if she had responded harshly because of his misbehaviour two months ago. The case of Mohibur Rahman and others v. the State of Assam, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 715, concluded that the fact that the accused and the victim were last seen together does not always entail that the accused committed the crime. Sanjay testified during his cross-examination that his late wife, Vaishali, went to her maternal residence first before going to the weekly market on January 8, 2013. The Court determined that Sachin was unlikely to use the sim cards handed to him by Vaishali to make phone calls on her cell phone. Even if the frequency of calls between accused no. 1 Sachin's sim-card/cell phone and deceased Vaishali's cell phone is taken into account, there were personal relations between them. However, this contradicts the prosecution's objective for proving accused no. 1 Sachin's involvement in the murder of Vaishali. During an inquiry, it was discovered that Accused No. 1 struck the deceased's head with a stone, according to The Investing Officer. He demanded sexual relations from Vaishali, and so she assaulted Sachin. Due to this, he murdered her out of revenge. The Court, however, did not find any evidence to draw this conclusion.