The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to seal samples and examine the investigating officer can impact the credibility of the evidence.

JUDGMENT

Prakash D. Naik, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order dated 25th august, 1998, passed by learned additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No.5 of 1993, convicting the appellant for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to sufer rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fne of Rs.500/-..

2 The prosecution case is that the accused and injured are residents of village Kalambaste. The injured had provided fnancial assistance to accused. Hee weas cultivating agricultural land of injured. She weas demanding repayment of amount given by her to accused. She had taken over the cultivation of land from accused. Ornaments of the injured and her sister weere given to accused for meeting his fnancial need. Even on demand, the accused weas not returning the ornaments. Heence, the relations betweeen accused and the injured weere strained. On 23rd February, 1992, injured and her sister weere proceeding by road of village Kalambaste for attending marriage ceremony. When both of them weere near school building on the said road, accused suddenly came there and assaulted injured anusaya weith knife causing several injuries on her person. at the time of assault, the person by name Gangaram from the same village weas proceeding by the road. Hee sawe the assault. Hee weent to the residence of anusaya. Hee informed her family about the incident. Heusband and sons of anusaya came to the spot of incident. anusaya weas lying on the ground weith bleeding injuries. She weas taken to hospital at Chiplun. Heer complaint weas reduced into weriting. Crime weas registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, spot panchanama weas recorded. accused weas arrested. Knife, clothes weith blood stained weere seized from the accused. Clothes of injured weere also seized under panchanama. Statements of weitnesses weere recorded. Seized property weas sent for chemical analysis. C.a. report and injury certifcates weere received. On completing investigation, chargesheet weas fled against the accused.

3 Charge weas framed against the accused for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by order dated 17th November, 1995. accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 The prosecution examined seven weitnesses. P.W.1 Mrs.anusaya Bhuvad, is the complainant/injured weitness, P.W.2 Santosh Ghadashi is panch for spot panchanama, P.W. 3 Keshav Badde is the panch for seizure of clothes of injured, P.W.4 Gangaram Bhuvad is eye weitness to the incident, P.W.5 Ramchandra Sakharam Shigvan is the panch weitness for seizure of clothes of injured, P.W.6 Dr.Prakash Gangadhar Patankar is the medical oficer attached to Cottage hospital, Chiplun, P.W.7 Mrs.Rukmini Metkar is the eye weitness to the incident.

5 P.W.Nos.3, 5 and 7 did not support the prosecution case. They weere declared hostile.

6 The prosecution has relied upon the C.a. report relating to blood of the injured, blood of accused, blood scrapings on knife, full pant, Baniyan, Sari and blouse.

7 The trial Court convicted the accused for the ofence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to sufer imprisonment.

8 Learned appointed advocate representing the appellant submitted that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence. The beneft of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. There weas no sealing of samples, panch weitnesses have not supported prosecution case. Investigating oficer is not examined. There is nothing on record to showe wehen and howe the accused is arrested. Knife, clothes samples weere not sealed. The relationship betweeen the accused and the complainant weas strained. The complainant has not given particulars of the ornaments and not disclosed the date on wehich the ornaments weere handed over to the accused. Witness Ghadshi is not trustweorthy. P.W.1 has not referred to presence of any other person at the time of incident.