1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

2. In the present criminal appeal the judgment and order dated 21st May 2004 passed by the IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, has been impugned whereby the appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for six months.

3. The circumstances resultant in prosecution of the appellant for offence of murder are as follows:-

Deceased Bibabai was the wife of the appellant and both of them along with their son P.W. 2 Laxman at the relevant time were residing in a farm house of Ajay at Village Satpur. The appellant and deceased were working as agricultural labour on the field. On 6th January 2003 P.W. 2 Laxman returned to his house at 6 p.m., requested the appellant (his father) to give him money to see the film. The appellant gave him money. Laxman went to Gauri Video Hall to watch the movie and returned home at about 11.30 p.m. Laxman found his mother Bibabai was lying on the floor. Her body was covered with a cloth. Appellant was present in the house. He was under the influence of liquor. When Laxman tried to wake up his mother Bibabai she did not respond. Laxman noticed that there was an injury on her forehead and blood was oozing from the said injury. Bibabai was not breathing and therefore Laxman thought that appellant Tukaram may have killed his mother. Laxman closed the door of the house from outside and proceeded to the house of his maternal uncle on bicycle. When Laxman was about to leave he noticed that the appellant broke open the window of the house and came out of the house and started running away from the house. Laxman chased him and caught him and taken him to the house of a watchman. Laxman put the appellant inside the house and locked the door from outside and proceeded towards the house of his maternal uncle Ashok at Gangapur. When he met Ashok he informed him about the incident. Ashok and Laxman then proceeded to Village Matori where P.W. 8 Hiraman, the another son of the appellant was residing. Laxman, Ashok and Hiraman proceeded to the house of Hausabai, grand mother of Laxman and Ashok. They informed her about the incident.

4. On 7th January 2003 at about 7 a.m. Laxman along with his relatives came back to his house and noticed that the appellant had already escaped from the house of the guard / watchman by breaking open the window. Laxman lodged report about the incident at Satpur Police Station. On the basis thereof offence came to be registered against the appellant. The prosecution after completion of formal investigation filed a charge sheet. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant which was read over to the appellant. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant emerging from the cross-examination of witnesses and the statement under Section 313 is that Laxman often used to quarrel with his mother On the day of the incident he quarreled with his mother and inflicted injury to Bibabai. The appellant also raised plea of alibi. According to the appellant on the day and at the time of incident he was not in his house and was staying with his son-in-law.

5. In the instant case the prosecution has examined as many as 12 prosecution witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellant for the offence of murder. The prosecution case is primarily based on testimony of P.W. 2 Laxman, P.W. 8 Hiraman, coupled with the medical evidence of P.W. 1 Dr. Kasodkar.

6. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the material evidence in the present case is of P.W. 2 Laxman and P.W. 8 Hiraman. Both are the sons of the appellant and the deceased was their mother. It is contended that neither Laxman nor Hiraman are the eye witnesses to the incident.