Abhay M. Thipsay, J.

1. The appellant was prosecuted on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, after holding a trial found him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this court by filing the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case before the trial court was as follows:

TaufiqShaikh (PW2) was residing with his first wife and children in a village in District Fatehpur, State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant is the son of Taufiq Shaikh from his first wife. Taufiq then came to reside at Vadgaon, Maval, in Pune District. He then contracted a second marriage with Parveen (the deceased) and started residing with her at Vadgaon, Maval. Parveen had given birth to a son – by name Salim – from Taufiq. The appellant had started visiting Vadgaon, Maval, since about three – four years before the incident that took place on 10.9.2002. The appellant had not liked that his father Taufiq had performed a second marriage, and therefore, he used to quarrel with Parveen. The relations between Parveen and the appellant were thus strained. About a month prior to the incident, the appellant came to Vadgaon, Maval, and started residing with Taufiq, Parveen and Salim. On 9.9.2002, all the four had their dinner and went to sleep in their house at Vadgaon, Maval. On the next day morning, at about 6.00 a.m., the appellant picked up a knife and stabbed Salim, who was aged four years, on his chest. When Parveen tried to intervene, the appellant also inflicted a blow with the same knife, over the neck of Parveen. Taufiq tried to intervene, but the appellant dropped the knife in the house and ran away. Salim died on the spot. Taufiq took Parveen to Talegaon General Hospital.

3. After running out of the house, the appellant went to Vadgaon-Maval Police Station and reported the matter to Head Constable Ulhas Yadav (PW5), who was on duty at that time. Ulhas Yadav sent two constables to the place of offence after taking an entry into the Station House Diary. Thereafter, Police Inspector Vijaykumar Bhoite (PW6) went to the place of offence and saw that Salim had sustained bleeding injuries and had died. On learning that injured Parveen had been taken to Talegaon Hospital, P.I. Bhoite went there, and after ascertaining from the Medical Officer on duty that Parveen was in a condition to make a statement, P.I. Bhoite recorded her statement (Exhibit 27). Based on the statement, a case came to be registered and investigation commenced. Spot panchnama was drawn and the weapon of the offence was seized from the place of incident under a panchnama. Some other articles also came to be seized from the place of offence, as they were having stains of blood on them. The inquest panchnama in respect of the dead body of Salim was drawn. The statement of Parveen was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Vadgaon, Maval, (Exhibit 19). Parveen succumbed to the injuries on 30.9.2002. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, pursuant to which, the appellant was tried and the trial resulted in his conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.

4. We have heard Smt.Rohini Dandekar, the learned advocate, who was appointed for the appellant, under the Free Legal Aid Scheme. We have also heard Mr.H.J.Dedhia, the learned APP for the State. With their assistance, we have gone through the record of the case, the evidence adduced during the trial, and also the impugned judgment.

5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses during the trial. The first witness Kisan More (PW1) is a panch in respect of the spot panchnama, who did not support the prosecution, and as such, was declared hostile. It is not necessary to refer to his evidence.

6. The second witness is Taufiq Shaikh (PW2), father o