M.G. Giratkar, J.

1. The appellant has assailed the Judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, dt.29.9.2017 in Sessions Trial No.397 of 2015, by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of prosecution against the appellant can be summarised as under :

On 25th June, 2015, there was a house warming ceremony (Vastu Shanti) at the house of Amol Dhoke, resident of Borkhedi. At about 7.30 p.m., Vinayak Ramaji Kannake (PW1) was requested by Vishnu Bansod to come for Vastu Shanti. Thereafetr, Vinayak Kannake (PW1) proceeded on his motor cycle. Near water tank of village Tarsi. deceased Pawan Tankse met him. On inquiry, he showed his readiness to come to attend the said function.

3. Vinayak and deceased Pawan went to village Borkhedi at about 7.30 p.m. They met Amol Dhoke, Vishnu Bansod and Prakash Kangale. As per say of Vishnu Bansod, they went for consuming liquor at liquor den. Accused Rahul Fransis came there. There was exchange of words between deceased Pawan and Rahul. Ankush tried to convince them. Thereafter, they went to the house of Amol Dhoke. Ladies were taking dinner. They were chitchatting near temple of Shankar.

4. Deceased Pawan took his mobile and went at some distance. There was failure of electricity. Immediately after some time, electricity was restored. At that time, they saw Pawan falling on the ground. They rushed there. They saw that there was injury on the neck of Pawan. Vinayak Kanake and others saw the accused running from the spot of incident. Deceased Pawan died on the spot itself. Father of deceased namely Maruti Sukhdeo Tangse (PW3) came to know about the incident. Therefore, he went to village Borkhedi. From the discussions of people, he came to know that accused Rahul has killed his son. Therefore, he went to the Police Station and lodged report (Exh.15).

5. Before lodging report, police had already reached to the spot of incident. Spot panchanama was prepared. After registration of crime, Police Inspector Chavan investigated the crime. He arrested the accused in the night itself at about 00.30 a.m. Knife was seized from the accused from his person. Spot panchanama was prepared by A.P.I. Meshram. Dead body was sent for post mortem. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After complete investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who, in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The trial Court framed charge at Exh.5. Same was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial and false implication. Prosecution examined ten witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted as stated above.

7. Heard Mr.C.R.Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has pointed out evidence of Vinayak Kannake (PW-1) and Prakash Kangali (PW-2) and submitted that they have not seen the accused while causing injury to the deceased. Their evidence show that they saw the accused near the spot of incident. Vinayak Kannake (PW-1) and Prakash Kangali (PW2) were the friends of deceased. But they did not make any attempt to chase the accused. Their evidence is not reliable. Vinayak (PW-1) has stated in his examination-in-chief that he saw the accused having knife in his hand But he did not identify the knife before the Court. On the other hand, he has stated in his cross-examination that he had not seen the knife.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out evidence of Prakash (PW-2). There is material omission brought on record in his cross-examination. Learned Counsel has submitted that investigation is doubtful. Knife was seized from the person of accused. This itself is not reliable. Other evidence are not useful to prosecution. Learned Counsel has