A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 12th September, 2012, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2009, convicting the appellant - Ravi Vitthalrao Rokade and sentencing him for offences under Sections:-

"[a] 302, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and payment of fine of Rs. 500-00, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], and

[b] 506, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], the present appeal has been filed by the appellant."

Facts:

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant - Vimlabai Gajbhiye has a daughter Lalita, whose husband went missing, not to return, and hence Lalita used to reside in her house in the village of her father, namely Bhilli. The appellant-accused Ravi Rokade residing in the same village fell in love with her and Lalita started residing with him in his house. Appellant Ravi was addicted to liquor and used to give threats to the complainant and her husband. Two-three months before the date of incident, complainant's husband Bapurao and son Kisna fed up with the harassment by appellant - Ravi assaulted him by sticks on his legs. But still he did not improve.

2. On 12th June, 2009, at about 8.00 p.m., a boy informed the complainant that Ravi was assaulting her husband Bapurao and, therefore, she rushed towards the place near bus stop on the road going towards old Bhilli village where she saw Ravi assaulting her husband by means of a stick. She tried to restrain him with a request not to assault, but to no use, and threatened to beat her also. The appellant caught hold of the feet of Bapurao, dragged him on the road and assaulted him with a stick. Deceased Bapurao lay unconscious. The stick was broken into two pieces. Bapurao died. Offence was registered with Police Station on the report lodged by Vimalabai vide Crime No. 50/2009 under Sections 302 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Police visited the spot and arrested the appellant. Thereafter, seizures were made, spot Panchanama was conducted and dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed.

3. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and closed the case. The Trial Court convicted the appellant as above. Hence this appeal.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel [appointed] for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the informant -complainant-Vimalabai [PW 1] is unreliable and, as a matter of fact, the evidence of other witnesses, if compared to her evidence, clearly shows that she had arrived at the spot after the incident was over and when the appellant was not there on the spot. According to him, Vimal [PW 1], therefore, could not be called as an eye-witness and, therefore, her evidence has wrongly been relied by learned Trial Judge. He then submitted that Vimal claimed to have been informed by Nilu Meshram, a child, but Nilu Meshram was not examined before the Court and that is another reason why she should be disbelieved.

5. Learned counsel then invited our attention to the evidence of Devrao [PW 2] relied upon by the Trial Judge, and submitted that similar is the evidence of Devrao which is totally in the form of omissions amounting to contradictions on material particulars. The evidence of Devrao [PW 2] is also required to be rejected, since there is total improvement in the prosecution case.

6. Commenting on the evidence of Sunil Borkar [PW 4], appellant's counsel submitted that the evidence of Sunil is contradictory and he does not corroborate any other witness and on the contrary, stated in his cross-examination that Vimal [PW 1] had arrived at the spot after the incident and, therefore, the court below should have drawn an inference that Vimal was not an eye-witness. Thus, the alleged direct evidence relied upon by the Trial Judge could not have be