The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimonies, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the bloodstains as evidence to establish guilt for murder.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

By this Appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 27-8-2013 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.423/2012. The appellant has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine has also been imposed and the sentences are to run concurrently.

2. We have heard the extensive submissions of Shri Jadhav, learned advocate appointed through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad, for the appellant/ accused and the learned Prosecutor on behalf of the State. With their assistance, we have gone through the appeal paper book and the record and proceeding, threadbare. By order dated 23-11-2020, we had directed the production of the station diary and by order dated 24-11-2020, we have noted the relevant entry Nos.13 and 16 in the police station diary No.260/2012 dated 16-9-2012.

3. A crime was registered by the informant Ambadas Khedkar on 16-9-2012 alleging that his sister Pushpa Nakade was murdered at about 07:30 AM on the said date by the accused/ appellant Dilip Namdeo Gade, who is the neighbour of the deceased. The informant is the biological brother of the deceased, who stated in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) that he had travelled along with his wife Prayagbai on 15-9-2012 to reach Gajraj Nagar, Ahmednagar in order to meet the deceased. Pushpa used to live in her house along with her married daughter Bhagyashri Nitin Chakor.

4. On 16-9-2012, at about 06:00 AM, Ambadas and other family members woke up and had tea. At about 07:30 AM, Ambadas went to the bathroom with the intention of taking a bath. His deceased sister Pushpa kept a bucket of hot water in the bathroom and went out of the house in the adjacent open space to bring cold water for Ambadas. As Ambadas was taking a bath, he heard Pushpa screaming and therefore, he came out of the bathroom and saw, in the front yard, the accused Dilip assaulting Pushpa with an axe. Due to the assault and blows of the axe, Pushpa fell down and the appellant/Dilip continued to inflict axe blows on her legs, hands and her back. Ambadas made a desperate attempt to prevent further blows in order to save Pushpa. The appellant/Dilip inflicted an axe blow on the chest of Ambadas. At the same time, the wife of Ambadas, Prayagbai (PW2) and the daughter of the deceased, Bhagyashri (PW3), had also rushed out of the house on hearing the screams of Pushpa and saw the appellant/ Dilip inflicting axe wounds on Pushpa and delivering a blow to Ambadas.

5. The injured Ambadas recorded the F.I.R. at about 09:35 AM. After the police arrived, he is said to have showed them the crime spot. He was taken to the hospital and a medical report was prepared at 10:40 AM. Considering his injury, he was admitted in the hospital and was subsequently discharged on 17-9-2012. The police began recording of the spot panchanama at 11:00 AM and completed the same at 11:30 AM, on 17.09.2012. Two panchas and the I.O. have signed upon the spot panchanama (Exhibit24). It is undisputed that the first informant Ambadas Khedkar died under natural circumstances after two months on 20-11-2012 and it is not the case of the prosecution that Ambadas died owing to complications arising out of the axe injury that he had sustained.

6. The prosecution brought forth two eyewitnesses and in all, examined 09 witnesses. As Ambadas had died, there was no chance of recording his testimony. As such, the F.I.R. was proved through the testimonies of the Investigating Officer (PW9), Prayagbai (PW2) and Bhagyashri (PW3). By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has held the accused guilty and has convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the I