The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and not amounting to murder is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and all evidence, including eyewitness testimony, dying declaration, and extra judicial confession, should be considered in reaching a decision.

JUDGMENT :

Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J

1. The appellant herein stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for six months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 315 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years by Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2012 vide Judgment and Order dated 31/10/2013. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :

(i) The appellant herein was married to Surekha 13 years prior to 20/4/2012. The couple was blessed with two daughters namely, Shweta and Neha. That 3 months prior to 20/4/2012 Surekha had disclosed to her sister-in-law that she has seen her husband engaged in long conversation with a lady on his phone. She suspected that he was in an extra marital relationship with the said lady. Her suspicion was strengthened because when she enquired about it, she was assaulted by her husband.

(ii) In the night intervening 19/4/2012 and 20/4/2012 Daksha informed brother of Surekha that a quarrel has taken place between Surekha and her husband at about 9.30 p.m. Her husband had assaulted her and thereafter, her husband and his friend had taken her to Hospital at Palghar and that they were accompanied by other relatives also.

(iii) Surekha was examined by Dr. Pankaj Thakare (P.W.11), Medical officer at Rural Hospital, Palghar. He found her to be disoriented. The doctor had noticed an abrasion over great-toe of left foot and a contused lacerated wound over scalp, left parietal region measuring 5 x 2 cm. It appeared to be a simple injury caused by hard and blunt object.

(iv) Upon enquiry, husband of the injured informed the doctor that a steel pot had fallen on her head. The patient was referred to higher center for further investigation and management. The injury certificate issued by P.W. 11 is at Exh. 33.

(v) Her mother and other family members had upon enquiry learnt that she was taken to Dhavale Hospital and the doctor had advised them to take her to Bombay.

(vi) Pursuant to medical advise, she was admitted in Nair hospital at Bombay. Surekha succumbed to the injury in Nair Hospital on 27/4/2012 at about midnight. The mother of deceased Surekha lodged a report at the police station on 29/4/2012.

(vii) It is alleged in the said FIR that at Nair hospital, the son of the first informant namely, Manoj enquired with the accused and at that time, the accused had disclosed that there was a quarrel between Surekha and him and in the course of quarreling he had assaulted Surekha with a stick on her head. He regrets for the same. He also informed Manoj that to escape from a criminal case, he had disclosed that a steel box had fallen on her head.

(viii) Neha, daughter of deceased and accused also informed all concerned, that her father had assaulted her mother with a stick. On 27/4/2012 A.D. NO. 15 of 2012 was registered under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The scene of offence panchanama, the inquest panchanama was conducted in A.D. Enquiry.

(ix) On 29/4/2012 Crime No. 23 of 2012 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

4. P.W.1 Smt. Jassu Babu Dubla happens to be the mother of the deceased. She has proved the contents of the FIR, which is marked at Exh. 11. It is elicted in her cross-examination that after death of her daughter, she had gone to Saphala Police Station after 12 days. It is admitted that her son and his friend had narrated the incident to the police and she had only put her thumb impression on the same.

5. The daughter of the deceased Neha has been examined by the prosecution as P.W. 2. She has deposed before the court that her father had assaulted her mother