16 In the case in hand, P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple is wife of the appellant/accused. According to the prosecution case, their marriage was solemnized long back in the year 1990. P.W.No.1 Prakash Pawar had stated that the appellant/accused used to quarrel with P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple and, therefore, she started residing with them. As against this, as per version of P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple, the appellant/accused used to ask for money from her father Ganpat Pawar and was ill-treating her and had deserted her. As such, she was residing with her parents. Despite this, both these witnesses are unanimous in stating that the appellant/accused telephonically called them on the day of the incident and insisted that P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple should join his company by resuming cohabitation. In fact, on getting negative answer, he went to the house of his in-laws all the way from his native place in Ahmadnagar District with an intention to take back his wife P.W.No.4 Sunita Pimple. He was not armed with any weapon when he visited the house of his in-laws. Refusal by his father-in-law to allow him to take back his wife resulted in the incident in question, in which the appellant/accused had taken a wooden log available nearby to assault his father-in-law and to cause injuries to his wife and his brother-in-law. As seen from the evidence of the Autopsy Surgeon, the dead body was having only one injury on the head which ultimately caused death. Obviously, it must be a single blow. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that sentence of
