The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of direct evidence, particularly eyewitness testimony, in cases of this nature. The judgment also emphasized the relevance of motive in cases of direct evidence and the admissibility of evidence leading to recoveries.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr Daulat Khamkar for the Appellants, and Ms P.P.Shinde learned APP for the State.

2. The Appellants question the judgment and order dated 6-6-2013 in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2011 made by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune convicting the Appellants for offences under Sections 302, 427, 435, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer, inter alia life imprisonment.

3. The Sessions Court, on 6-9-2012, framed the charges against the Appellants alleging that on 18-10-2010 between 8.45 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. and between 10.30 a.m. and 11.15 a.m., they, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy and having common intention, murdered Vitthal Krishna Warhe and his son Sunil Vitthal Warhe. The Appellants were also charged for other offences like house-trespass. The charge alleged that the Appellants used a sickle and sticks to murder Vitthal and Sunil.

4. The Prosecution examined ten witnesses, including PW-1 and PW-2 and PW-3 – eyewitnesses. The Appellants were offered an opportunity in terms of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Appellants, having availed of this opportunity, even stated that they would examine one defence witness. However, a praecipe was ultimately filed stating that they do not wish to examine any defence witnesses. After considering the evidence on record and appreciating the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants and the Prosecution, the Sessions Judge has made the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing of the Appellants. Hence, this Appeal.

5. Mr Khamkar, learned Counsel for the Appellants, assails the impugned conviction by pointing out that the Prosecution version is inherently improbable. He points out that the testimonies of none of the eyewitnesses inspire confidence because they are riddled with contradictions and omissions. He submitted that there is no consistency between the version deposed to by the three alleged eyewitnesses. He offered that these witnesses are interested because they are closely related to the deceased persons. He, therefore, submits that the testimony of these so-called eyewitnesses deserves to be excluded from consideration. Upon such exclusion, he submits that there is no legal evidence to sustain the conviction.

6. Mr Khamkar points out that PW-3, a child witness, deposed to witnessing some of the Appellants assaulting Vitthal on his neck. However, the medical evidence rules out any injuries on the neck. He submits that even otherwise, the testimony of PW-3 is quite vague and not specific. He submits that PW-1 does not refer to the presence of PW-3 at the time of the incident. He referred to the omissions marked in the testimony of PW-3 and submitted that these are material omissions. For all these reasons, Mr Khamkar submitted that the testimony of PW- 3 must be entirely excluded from consideration.

7. Mr Khamkar submitted that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are vague. They refer vaguely to having witnessed the allegedly murderous assault. However, they give no details about which Appellant held that particular weapon. They also do not depose about the Appellants giving blows to any specific part of the deceased's body. He points out some of the omissions in the testimony of PW-2 on the aspect of sickle and wooden log. Based upon all these, he submits that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the Appellants in this matter.

8. Mr Khamkar submits that if the Prosecution's version about villagers' gathering at the site is to be accepted, then there is no explanation why the Prosecution examined no independent witnesses. Furthermore, he points out that there was almost three hours of delay in recording the FIR, and this delay casts doubt on the Prosecution's version.

9. Mr Khamkar submits that the Prosecution never examined Ashok, who was riding pillion with the deceased Sunil. This is despite the Prosecution's version that the Appellants even assaulted Ashok, who suffered injuries due to the assault.