The judgment establishes the principle that the nature of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon, and absence of provocation indicate the intention to commit murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGEMENT :

G. A. SANAP, J.

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 28th December, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana, in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2013, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

The informant (PW1) is the father-in-law of deceased Sharda. The incident occurred on 23rd of April, 2013 around 12.15 p.m. The appellant is the nephew of the informant. The facts recorded in the first information report have unfolded the incident. The appellant was raising dispute with the deceased and Shrawan, husband of the deceased, for vacating the land. The informant on the date of incident went to Khamgaon to see his daughter’s son, who was admitted in the hospital. At about 1.00 p.m. Laxman Paraskar (PW8) made a phone call to him and informed him that the appellant had assaulted his daughter-in-law by axe. Laxman (PW8) requested the informant to come back immediately. Informant (PW1) came back to his village. He saw that crowed gathered in front of the house. He saw his daughter-in-law Sharda was lying in the bathroom in a pool of blood. She had sustained injuries on her head, neck and on back. The informant went to Jalamb police station and lodged the report of incident. On the basis of this report, a crime bearing No.21/2013 came to be registered.

3. Santosh Tale (PW13), Assistant Police Inspector, attached to Jalamb Police Station, conducted the investigation. He visited the spot of the incident and drew the spot panchanama. He also held the inquest of the dead body. He collected and seized the blood and blood mixed soil samples from the spot. He forwarded the dead body to the General Hospital, Khamgaon for post mortem. He arrested the appellant and seized the clothes worn by him. The appellant during the course of investigation made a confession which led to the discovery of axe used by the appellant for commission of the crime. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon.

4. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon. On committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the Charge at Exhibit-2. The Charge was read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The defence of the appellant is of total denial and false implication in the case.

5. In order to bring home the guilt against the appellant, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The prosecution relied on number of documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the material on record, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the appellant is before this Court in appeal.

6. We have heard Shri M. L. Chouhan, learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and Shri M. J. Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With their able assistance we have gone through the entire record and proceedings.

7. The first plank of the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant. Shri Chouhan, learned advocate for the appellant took us through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that there are major omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the actual occurrenc