The judgment emphasizes the necessity of clear and cogent evidence to establish shared intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the requirement to put circumstances to the accused during trial. It also underscores the importance of consistent and corroborated witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.271/2012, the Appellant-Original Accused No.2 has preferred this Appeal by taking aid of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Appellant was put on trial alongwith co-accused Pandarinath Dattu Bodke for charge of committing murder of their cousin Samadhan Motiram Bodke, resident of same village Talwade for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. There is no record or office note which may indicate that original Accused No.1 Pandarinath has preferred an appeal, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik.

4. In the above premise, we are dealing with this appeal preferred by original Accused No.2-Appellant/Ramesh.

5. According to the Prosecution story, the Appellant alongwith his accomplice were on cross terms with the father of the deceased on account of land dispute. Appellant had also an evil eye on the wife of deceased. Samadhan Moti Bodke (since deceased) left his house after breakfast on 13th September 2012 at about 8.30 a.m. with his agriculture equipment sickle and rope. It was his daily routine to cut the grass with help of sickle and after tying it with rope bring it to the house for his she buffaloes. Motiram Mathhu Bodke happened to be father of the deceased who is first informant. First Informant left his house with she buffaloes in the morning. He went to the area of Pach Budache farm for grazing his she buffaloes. Bhaguji Punja Bodke informed to the first informant on his mobile that accused Pandarinath Dattu Bodke has assaulted Samadhan by means of sickle. Samadhan was lying in the pool of blood. First informant was asked to leave the spot immediately to reach Trimbakeshwar hospital. Samadhan was taken to Trimbakeshwar hospital by four wheeler. Doctor attached to Trimbakeshwar hospital examined Samadhan and declared him dead.

6. Motiram Matthu Bodke-father of the deceased rushed to Trimbakeshar Police Station and lodged FIR against this Appellant-Accused No.2 and Pandarinath- Accused No.1 for committing murder of his son Samadhan. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased C.R.No.59/2012 came to be registered with Trimbakeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

7. The investigation was entrusted to the Police Inspector Mr. K.J. More. He went to the scene of offence and prepared panchnama of offence in the presence of panch witnesses. Articles like soil mixed with blood, one white shirt button, one black colour cap, soil without blood, bundle of grass tied with nylon rope came to be seized from the scene of offence. The dead body was referred for autopsy and opinion about cause of death. The weapon used in the commission of the offence came to be recovered and seized under the seizure panchnama. The Mudemal articles were sent to C.A. for analysis and report. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses including eye witnesses. The Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against both the accused for the offence of committing murder of Samadhan. Ultimately, investigation conducted by Police Inspector More culminated in sending up of chargesheet to the concerned Court of JMFC.

8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Nashik for trial in view of offence of murder involved therein.

9. The learned trial Judge framed the charge against this Appellant-Accused No.2 and original Accused No.1 on 18th March 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

10. The trial was commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge at Nashik. The prosecution machinery has examined in all 16 witnesses and thereafter closed its evidence. The statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be