JUDGMENT :-

V.G. Bisht, J.

1. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC”) challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 169 of 2013 dated 15th March, 2014 by which the trial Court convicted the appellant/ original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and sentenced him life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to deposit the amount of fine, ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The trial Court was, however, pleased to acquit the appellant-original accused of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that, on 30th January, 2013 at about 9.30 a.m., Bhalchandra Somshekhar Jawalkoti i.e., informant (PW-1), while standing in front of hotel of one Girmal Pomaji of village Wagdari, one Raghuveer Nanjude (PW-2) came and informed that on the same day at about 9.15 a.m., he and informant’s father, namely, Somshekhar Jawalkoti (deceased) while proceeding towards the village Hiroli by walk from Wagdari village, a luxury bus came from the Hiroli side and from which Somnath Virbhadrayya Vijapure i.e., accused alighted and came before them. The accused started complaining the deceased in respect of bandh (boundary) to which the deceased asked not to quarrel. The prosecution alleges that after hearing this, the accused told deceased that he would see him immediately and then gave blow of an axe on his head, back and chest brutally. The deceased fell down. After getting injured seriously and when the informant tried to intervene, the accused rushed on his person and therefore, the informant kept himself aside. Later on, the accused ran into the forest.

3. The prosecution then contends that the informant then along with PW-2 rushed to the spot and with the help of others took his father to Rural Hospital, Akkalkot where the deceased was declared dead.

4. The First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) was registered vide Crime No. 21 of 2013 with Akkalkot Police Station, Solapur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The investigation was taken up by the investigating officer, who prepared spot panchnama, seizure panchnama of various articles seized from the spot and recorded statements of witnesses.

5. PW-10 Police Naik took the muddemal property from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.

6. PW-7 Dr.Ravindra Mallikarjun Bansode conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and noted number of injuries on his person and opined that the deceased had died due to haemorrhagic shock. The result of analysis issued by Forensic Science Laboratory shows that the human blood of group “O” was found on the clothes of the deceased and accused and an axe was also found to have stained with human blood. On completion of the investigation, police filed the chargesheet against the appellant-original accused under Sections 302, 504 and 506 of the IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Solapur.

7. To substantiate the charge against the appellant-original accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The appellant- original accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and the appellant- original accused denied all of them as false.

8. Upon appreciation of oral evidence and circumstances, the trial Court convicted the appellant- original accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him in the manner stated here in above. Hence, this appeal.

9. Ms.Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant/original accused, has made a valiant attempt to bring the case within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. She emphasized that