Ranjana Desai, J

1. The appellant was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 125 of 2004 for committing murder of his mother Shakuntala on 23/7/2004 at village Nhavi Budruk, Taluka Raigarh, District Satara. By the impugned judgment and order he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. It is necessary to begin with the facts of the case. PW 3 Rajaram Ramchandra Sutar is the father of the appellant. Deceased Shakuntala was his mother. PW 3 Rajaram Sutar was residing at village Nhavi Budruk, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara along with his wife deceased Shakuntala and the appellant. The wife of the appellant had left him due to harassment meted out to her by him. Fifteen days prior to 3/7/04 PW 3 Rajaram Sutar had gone to Wangi, Taluka Khanapur, because the appellant was subjecting him to harassment. On 23/7/04 through one Shrikrishna Vasudev Kulkarni, PW 3 Rajaram came to know that the appellant was beating Shakuntala, i.e. his wife (the mother of the appellant) in the house. Thereafter through Nurmahammad Mulani he came to know that the appellant had killed Shakuntala. PW 1 Santosh Pandurang Sutar had informed him that the appellant had dealt stick blows on the head of Shakuntala resulting in her death and that the appellant was confined in Shivaji Hall. PW 3 went to his house and found Shakuntala lying dead in pool of blood with head injury. PW 3 Rajaram Sutar with the help of PW 2 Sambhaji Pandharinath Salunkhe went to Rahimatpur Police Station and lodged complaint which is at Exh.-16. On the basis of the complaint investigation was started. After completion of the investigation the appellant came to be charged as aforesaid.

3. In support of its case the prosecution examined PW 1 Santosh Pandurang Sutar, cousin of the appellant, PW 2 Sambhaji Pandharinath Salunkhe, resident of village Nhavi Budruk, PW 3 Rajaram Ramchandra Sutar, the complainant, PW 4 API Vishwanath Dnyandeo Ghanwat, who was attached to Rahimatpur Police Station at the relevant time and, PW 5 Dr. Vijaykumar Babasaheb Pandhare, who had done postmortem on the deceased. Defence of the appellant was one of denial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that the prosecution witnesses were deposing falsely against him because they wanted to grab his property. The evidence led by the prosecution found favour with learned Sessions Judge and hence he convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

4. We have heard at some length Ms. Kuttikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Kantharia, learned APP. With the assistance of learned counsel, we have gone through the record of the case. Ms. Kuttikrishnan submitted that the evidence of none of the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence. There are several inconsistencies in their evidence and, therefore, the order of conviction and sentence be set aside. She further submitted that in case this court comes to a conclusion that the appellant is guilty, he may be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He may be convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC as the incident took place in the heat of passion. There was no premeditation. Ms. Kantharia on the other hand submitted that the prosecution has led cogent and credible evidence. Evidence of all the witnesses is consistent. The father of the appellant has deposed against him. No father would depose against his son unless he is really guilty. She submitted that, therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC be maintained. She submitted that the appellant has brutally murdered his mother. The d