JUDGMENT :

M.S. Jawalkar, J.

Heard learned Counsel, Ms. Gina Maria Almeida for the appellant and Mr. Gaurish Nagvenkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, respondent.

2. The present Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment, order and sentence dated 04.11.2016 and 14.11.2016, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, sitting at Ponda, Goa, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case in brief can be summarized as under:

That, the appellant herein is accused of having committed murder of his mother. The accused in between 13.03.2012 at 16:00 hours to 14.03.2012 at 13:00 hours at house no. 48, Karmale, Keri, Ponda, Goa, wrongfully confined his aged mother, Smt. Sita Jairam Gawde in the house and assaulted her with stone and caused injuries on her body, resulting in her death, thereby committing offences punishable under Section 342 and 302 of IPC. The charge is framed on 31.01.2013 accordingly.

4. Upon the accused pleading not guilty, the trial commenced, in which, the prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses. After recording of evidence, statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused/appellant neither examined himself nor any witness in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2016 and 14.11.2016, has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, however, he was acquitted for having committed the offence under Section 342 of IPC of illegal confinement of the deceased/mother.

5. Ms. Almeida, the learned Counsel for the appellant, mainly challenged the judgment and order on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the case was one of that of circumstantial evidence and there was no parallel investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer. Secondly, the accused was suffering with unsoundness of mind, prior to and at the time of commission of the offence as well as after the said incident. It is further submitted that it is not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the death is caused in the presence of the accused and the certain time of death. It is submitted that intention, knowledge or motive are not proved by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have extended the benefit of Section 84 of IPC to the accused, in the prevailing facts and circumstances. The conduct of the accused after the incident ought to have taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge.

6. As against this, Mr. Nagvenkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submitted that the accused was earlier also, convicted for the offence of committing murder of his father and now, he has caused death of his mother. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of incident, the accused was suffering with unsoundness of mind. It is submitted that the judgment and order, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is principally justified under the facts, circumstances and evidence on record.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out from the evidence of PW-10, Suresh Gaonkar, retired Police Inspector (who was the Investigating Officer, who has carried out the investigations) that in cross, he has admitted that he has not carried out any parallel investigations. Learned Advocate Ms. Almeida, referred us to the evidence of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 and pointed out that PW5, Vaishali Gaude, wife of complainant is not only interested witness, but, she also deposed falsely that the accused was not going to do any work and in the cross she has deposed that the accused was working with Mayur Traders. She also deposed that at the time of incident, her husband did not go to work in