Important Point: Trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas, evidence given by a dozen of witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the convict. Moreover, non-examination of a witness who may be available with the prosecution, cannot be a ritualistic formula to discard evidence of trustworthy witnesses. Non-examination of material witness assumes importance only if the available evidence is unworthy of reliance

A.M. BADAR, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 16th March 2011 passed by the learned Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 year.

2. Briefly stated, facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused are thus :

Appellant/accused Bandu Phadvale is cousin of Vijay Chintaman Phadvale (since deceased). They both were residents of Village Uprale – Vaghonpada, in Vikramgad Taluka of Thane District. The incident of commission of murder of Vijay Phadvale took place on 1st March 2010 at Village Uprale, Vaghonpada. It was the day of festival of holi. Raju Lakhma Bhivra (PW1), who is brother of Champa Phadvale – mother of deceased Vijay Phadvale, visited Village Vaghonpada for meeting his nephew Vijay Phadvale (since deceased) and Vinayak Phadvale. After spending some time at Village Vaghonpada, informant Raju Bhivra (PW1) left to his Village Kombadpada.

3. Because of festival of Holi, a goat was sacrificed at Village Vaghonpada. Thereafter, goat meat was distributed amongst villagers. Vijay Phadvale (since deceased) took his share of goat meat and returned to his house, where he was staying with his wife Ranjana (PW2) and son Umesh. In the afternoon, according to prosecution case, appellant/ accused Bandu Phadvale took deceased Vijay Phadvale with him to his house. There was dispute between both cousins over issue of land. According to prosecution case, in the house of appellant/accused Bandu Phadvale, there was quarrel between Bandu Phadvale and deceased Vijay Phadvale. During the course of that quarrel, appellant/accused took an axe and gave blows thereof on neck and backside of deceased Vijay Phadvale. Injured Vijay Phadvale fell in the front room of the house of appellant/accused, bleeding profusely. The incident, according to prosecution case, was witnessed by PW2 Ranjana Phadvale – wife of deceased Vijay Phadvale. Appellant/accused ran away from the spot with an axe but villagers chased him. He was arrested and handed over to police. Villagers including PW6 Vasant Vaijal took injured Vijay Phadvale to the hospital at Jawahar. The Medical Officer referred him to a hospital at Thane, but while proceeding towards Thane, Vijay Phadvale succumbed to injuries, and therefore, he was taken to a hospital at Wada, where he was declared dead.

4. Upon being informed about the incident, PW1 Raju Bhivra, uncle of deceased Vijay Phadvale, lodged report Exhibit 12, and accordingly, Crime No. 125 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC came to be registered against appellant/ accused at Police Station Vikramgad, District Thane.

5. During the course of investigation, the spot was inspected. Half pant of appellant/ accused came to be seized. Weapon of offence i.e. an axe came to be seized. Clothes of deceased Vijay Phadvale came to be seized. Earth mixed with blood came to be seized from the spot of the incident. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on completion of investigation, appellant/accused came to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

6. After committal of case and on conducting due trial, the learned Extra Joint Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, vide judgment and order dated 16th March 2011 in Sessions Case No. 262 of 2010 was pleased to convict appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and he is sentenced accordingly as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

7. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for appellant/accused. By taking us through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, he vehemently argued that as seen from evidence of PW2 Ranjana, she visited the spot of the incident upon being informed by her s