The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with procedural requirements, such as section 157 of Cr.P.C., and the need for a proper and sufficient investigation to establish the guilt of the accused.

B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Appellant Deepak @ Anna Sitaram Kate in Criminal Appeal No.560/2012 happened to be accused No.1 while his parents happened to be accused Nos.2 and 3 in Sessions Case No.95/2010 on the file of Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati. That Court vide Judgment delivered on 27/3/2012 acquitted accused No.2 and 3 and punished accused No.1 for offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. For offence under section 307 of IPC he has been sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years. Accused No.1 Deepak has challenged his conviction in Appeal No.560/2012 while the State of Maharashtra has challenged acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No.640/2013.

2. Deceased Sachin was cousin of Deepak i.e. his father Navnath is the brother of accused No.2. Injured Rukhmini is the wife of Navnath and the mother of deceased Sachin. The case of prosecution is agricultural field belonging to father Sampat of Sitaram and Navnath was partitioned between them by Sampat. Sitaram always felt that he got less share and hence there used to be quarrel between him and Navnath.

3. Murder of Sachin has taken place on 4/9/2010. Report to police is lodged by Rukhmini (PW-1). Prosecution claims that complainant Rukhmini had gone to her field on that day and at that time accused No.1 was administering pesticides to his crops and hence Navnath told accused No.1 to be cautious. This led to some altercation. In the evening she returned home and at 7.00 p.m. was sitting along with her husband and deceased in the house. Accused No.1 Deepak came near their house and called Sachin outside. Accordingly, Sachin went out and she followed him. Deepak questioned Sachin why he was taking bullocks on bund of his land. He took out a weapon like sattur from belt of his pant and inserted it in the stomach of her son. Her son Sachin shouted. She therefore proceeded further but Deepak gave blow of sattur on her head. When Deepak assaulted on stomach of Sachin, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were holding him. Her son fell down on ground. Complainant Rukhmini and Sachin were then taken to Ashwini hospital of Doctor Inamdar at Akluj where he was declared dead. Her report was recorded in the hospital.

4. We have heard learned counsel Pendse instructed by learned counsel Akshay Gosavi for the appellant Deepak in Criminal Appeal No.560/2012 and for respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Appellant) in criminal Appeal No.640/2013. Mrs.Mhatre, learned APP has argued for the State of Maharashtra in both the matters.

5. Learned counsel Pendse has submitted that the State Government could not prove the printed FIR and it therefore cannot succeed in getting conviction of any accused. He has taken us through evidence of PW-1-Rukhmini (complainant), PW-2-Navnath, PW-3 Bhagwan, PW-4- Dattatray in attempt to show that these persons cannot be accepted as credit-worthy witnesses. Their evidence is mutually inconsistent and contrary to the case of prosecution. According to him Trial Court has rightly disbelieved them and exonerated respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the parents of Deepak. Very same reasons needed to be applied while considering material alleged to be against accused No.1 Deepak.

6. He submits that PW-1-Rukhmini claims that she followed her son immediately and therefore witnessed the incident. However, her statement that accused Nos.2 and 3 had caught hold of Sachin and accused No.1 Deepak inserted Sattur in abdomen of Sachin is not accepted and accused Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted. He has drawn our attention to spot panchanama Exhibit 28 and deposition of these witnesses with contention that actual place of occurrence specified in spot panchanama is not supported by Rukhmini. She denies the occurrence in the courtyard of accused persons and hence she cannot be relied upon at all. He further adds that in any case deceased Sachin entering the courtyard of Deepak therefore makes him an aggressor.

7. Pw-1- Rukhmini claim