The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of frequent quarrels, eyewitness testimony, and strained relations can support a conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the defense of false implication must be substantiated with credible reasons.

JUDGMENT

N.R. Borkar, J. - This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2014.

2] By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant, who was the accused before the trial court, has been convicted for the ofence punishable under section 302 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to sufer Life Imprisonment and to pay fne of Rs.1000/- in default to sufer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3] The deceased was the son of accused. There used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused. The deceased, therefore, some times used to stay out of the house and in the night used to sleep in front of shop of one Kumar (place of incident). according to the prosecution, in the intervening night of 14.03.2014 and 15.03.2014, again a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. The deceased thus went out of the house and as usual slept in front of the shop of the said Kumar.

4] according to the prosecution, at about 6.30 a.m., the accused came to the place of incident and assaulted the deceased while he was asleep by iron pipe. In the said assault, the deceased had sustained injuries. The deceased was taken to Sion Hospital, however, he was declared brought dead.

5] The report in relation to incident was lodged by PW-1 adbul Rahman Shaikh, who according to the prosecution, at the time of incident was sleeping beside the deceased. On the basis of said report, crime vide crime No. 107 of 2014 was registered for the ofence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was fled against the accused.

6] The accused was charged and tried for the ofence punishable under section 302 of the IPC. as stated earlier, the trial court, by the impugned judgement and order, convicted the accused for the said ofence.

7] We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused and learned aPP for the respondent -State.

8] The fact that the deceased had died homicidal death is not disputed before us.

9] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that evidence on record is not sufcient to connect the accused with the alleged crime. It is submitted that no motive is attributed to the accused. It is submitted that in absence of any motive, the trial court was not justifed in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted.

10] On the other hand, learned aPP for the respondent/ State submits that the evidence on record would show that, there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. It is submitted that there is eye witness to the incident, whose testimony remained un-shattered in the cross-examination. It is submitted that considering the evidence on record, the trial court was justifed in convicting the appellant/ accused.

11] according to PW-1 abdul R. Shaikh, the deceased was his good friend. according to him, the relations between the accused and deceased were strained.

12] according to PW-1, his family was consisting of 10 persons and the room in which they were residing was 250 x 200 sq. ft. Therefore, due to space constraint, in the night he used to sleep in front of shop of Kumar, which was there on the ground foor of Lokseva Building. according to PW-1, sometimes, the deceased used to come and sleep beside him.

13] according to PW-1, on 15.03.2014 in the night at about 1.30 a.m., as usual he came to sleep in front of Kumar's shop. after some time, he noticed that the deceased was sleeping next to him. according to PW-1, at about 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., he got woken up due to sudden sound of assault. He saw that the accused was assaulting the deceased with iron pipe on his head. according to PW-1, the accused after assault ran way from the place of incident. He initially, followed him, but then gave up due t