The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on ocular testimonies, recovery of the weapon used in the crime, and the Chemical Analyser's report to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.

1) The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6/4/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No. 57/2008, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

2) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:

Accused Kisan and deceased Ramratan were residents of village Chandpur. Their houses were situated at the distance of about 200 feet from each other. Prior to occurrence of the incident, there was a Gram Panchayat election. Deceased Ramratan was supporting Munna Raut and Ranjana Raut whereas accused was supporting Jaswant Hinge and Benubai Lanje. During the course of election, quarrel took place between accused and deceased Ramratan. At that time, accused had given a threat to deceased Ramratan.

3) On 16/4/2008, at about 10.30 a.m., deceased Ramratan was standing in front of house of Jaswantabai Sahare. At that time, accused came near deceased Ramratan and inflicted injuries by iron chopper on his neck and left shoulder. P.W.3 Kejram intervened and tried to rescue deceased Ramratan. As such, he also sustained an injury. Due to assault, deceased Ramratan fell on the ground. P.W.2 Tarabai informed about the incident to P.W.1 Anjanabai, wife of deceased Ramratan. P.W.1 Anjanabai went to the spot and noticed that her husband was lying on the road. He was taken to the Hospital in a Jeep and in the Hospital, he was declared dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 Anjanabai lodged a report with Police Station, Sihora, on the basis of which Crime No.25/2008 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused was immediately arrested.

4) After completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the Sessions Court. A charge came to be framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order of conviction and sentence, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5) Shri Kukade, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies are not free from doubt. It is contended that conviction of the appellant is based only on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses and as such, the same is not sustainable. It is submitted that the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and accused needs to be acquitted.

6) On the other hand, Shri Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that apart from the evidence of eye witnesses, there is recovery of the weapon used in the crime on a memorandum of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that report of Chemical Analyser also corroborates the prosecution case. It is, therefore, submitted that the criminal appeal is without any merit and liable to be dismissed.

7) With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have scrutinised the evidence on record. P.W.1 Anjanabai, wife of deceased Ramratan, is the first informant. However, she is not an eye witness to the incident. Her evidence would be relevant only insofar as motive of the crime is concerned. She states about dispute between deceased Ramratan and accused on account of Gram Panchayat elections, which were held earlier. Insofar as actual incident is concerned, she states that on the day of incident, at about 10.30 a.m., Tarabai rushed to her house and info