The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of conclusive evidence and highlighted the lack of proof in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

Sarang V. Kotwal, J. - The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 29/04/2011 passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No.70 of 2010. By the impugned Judgment and Order the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment of three months. The appellant was granted benefit of set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The appellant's mother, who was the accused No.2, was acquitted.

2. Heard Mr.Swapnil Ovalekar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.G.P. Mulekar, learned aPP for the State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The prosecution case is that, previously, the appellant was married to one Manisha. She was maternal cousin of one Vilas (the deceased in this case). There was divorce between the appellant and Manisha. The appellant was blaming Vilas for divorce between the appellant and Manisha. The divorce had taken place about 20 years prior to the incident. The incident took place on 19/01/2010. It is the prosecution case that, at about 04.30 p.m., the deceased Vilas had gone towards the house of the appellant to question him, as on the same day some time ago, the appellant had told Vilas's mother that he would murder Vilas. according to the prosecution case, when Vilas reached near the house of the appellant, both the accused i.e. the appellant and his mother assaulted the deceased. The appellant assaulted him with the knife and accused No.2 assaulted Vilas with iron rod. a crowd gathered there. Somebody informed the police. The police reached the spot. The appellant was standing there with the knife in his hand. The deceased was lying on the road in injured condition. The appellant was taken to ambad Police Station, which was about less than a kilometer from the spot. The beat marshal, who took the appellant to police station, came back to the spot and then shifted Vilas to Civil Hospital. after that, he was taken to another hospital and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries.

Initially the FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased u/s 307 of the IPC and subsequently after death the deceased, section 302 of IPC was added. The FIR was lodged at ambad Police Station vide C.R.No.I-35/2010.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. The defence of the appellant and the co-accused was of total denial. There was no eyewitness to the actual assault, but there were witnesses who had seen the appellant standing near the injured with a blood stained knife in his hand. at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge acquitted the co-accused/mother; but convicted the appellant as mentioned earlier. The learned Judge mainly relied on the evidence of those witnesses who had reached the spot. There were two Rikshaw drivers, who have deposed that the appellant was standing there with a knife in his hand. There was a beat marshal who had reached the spot and had taken the appellant to the police station. The evidence against the accused No.2 was not found sufficient and benefit of doubt was given to that accused.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are important discrepancies between the evidence of the witnesses who had reached the spot and had allegedly seen the appellant standing near the injured. He submitted that those witnesses were chance witnesses. The statements of neighbours and other persons from the crowd of about 70 people, was not recorded by the police. The FIR was not immediately lodged. There is no arrest panchanama on record. Therefore there is nothing to show that the appellant was arrested immediately as claimed by the prosecution. The C.a. reports are not on record. The seizure of knife at the instance of the appellant is extremely doubtful and there is no connecting piece of evidence with that knife in the form of the C.a. Report. The