The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which outlines situations where culpable homicide does not amount to murder, based on the absence of premeditation, the occurrence in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and the absence of undue advantage or cruel/unusual behavior by the offender.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed to question legality of Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2016, convicting Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In addition, Appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 506(2) IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-and in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month; both sentences to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case relates to an incident which took place on 24.02.2016 resulting in the death of one Shivram Pawar at the hands of Appellant (accused).

3. On 24.02.2016 at about 7.00 p.m. Mangalabai, wife of Appellant approached PW-1 – Yashwant son of Shivram Pawar and informed him that a fight was going on between Appellant and Shivram in front of their house. Appellant and Shivram are neighbours; PW-1 rushed to the spot of incident and saw his father lying injured in a pool of blood with injuries on his head, ear and cheek; PW-1 raised a shout for help, hearing which his uncle Hiraman Pawar, aunt Mirabai, cousin Dattu Pawar, Ashok Palve (neighbour) and Prakash More rushed to the spot of incident and witnessed injured Shivram and Appellant moving around carrying a bloodstained axe in his hand and threatening them. Injured Shivram was taken to Vakratunda hospital by Hiraman, Ashok Palve and Prakash More and thereafter to Civil hospital were he was declared dead on admission.

4. According to prosecution, cousin brother of PW-1, Balu Hiraman Pawar and Sangita, daughter of Appellant had eloped one year ago and subsequently got married; Appellant suspected that Shivram and his family members supported and helped Balu Pawar and therefore had a grudge against them; hence due to the quarrel Appellant assaulted Shivram on his head with the weapon (axe). It has also come on record that after their marriage, Balu Pawar and Sangita were residing in the neighbourhood of Appellant.

5. C.R. No. 157 of 2016 was lodged by PW-1 in Indiranagar Police Station, Nashik and criminal law was set into motion and Appellant was arrested on 24.02.2016.

6. According to Prosecution, PW-1 and PW-6 are eyewitnesses to the incident having seen Appellant assaulting Shivram with axe and were present at the spot of incident. PW-2 conducted spot panchanama vide Exhibit-15 and recovery and seizure panchanama of bloodstained axe from the spot of incident vide Exhibit-16. Inquest panchanama was conducted by PW-5 pancha witness vide Exh-24. PW11 photographer was summoned by the Investigating Officer (for short “I.O.”) and he took pictures of the spot of incident. Bloodstained clothes of Appellant were recovered and seized in the presence of PW-4, pancha witness vide Exhibit-22. Prosecution also examined two engineers working with the Electricity department, viz; PW-13 and PW-14 who deposed that at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening on the date of incident there were lights on the lampposts in the vicinity of the spot of incident. PW-7 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Shivram; he was examined and postmortem report was marked in evidence as Exhibit-21.

7. After completing investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed below Exhibit-5 under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC against Appellant. It was read out and explained to him in vernacular; Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried; his defence being that of total denial and false implication.

8. To bring home the guilt of Appellant, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Inquest panchanama vide Exhibit-24 was proved by PW5 and postmortem report vide Exhibit-27 was proved by PW-7, Dr. Anand Vilas Pawar. PM report shows that deceased Shivram had 4