JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original accused challenging his conviction by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 11.01.2016 in Sessions Case No.281 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution story in short is that one Rajendra Uttamrao Khandagale is the Police Head Constable posted at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. He was on duty in the intervening night of 05.05.2013 to 06.05.2013. A person introducing himself as Ajim Shah (present accused) went to police station around 4.45 a.m. on 06.05.2013 and disclosed to P.W.5 Rajendra that he has killed one Mujju Qureshi by smashing his head by stone on account of quarrel that had taken place earlier night. He also disclosed that the said incident is happened near the construction site at Samta Nagar. Station Diary entry was taken and then P.W.5 Rajendra called Bit Marshal-1 Police Constable Admane and Police Head Constable Lokhande to Police Station. He gave them information and instructed them to go to the place and verify the fact. Police Constable Admane went to Samta Nagar and met Mukhtar Karim Qureshi – father of Mujju and made inquiry about Mujju. It was replied by P.W.2 Mukhtar that Mujju had gone to the house of his Bade Abba and assured that he would make inquiry and inform the police. P.W.2 Mukhtar then gone to the construction site and saw his son Muzaffar @ Mujju lying in pool of blood. One stone was also lying near his body. Ramjan, Wasim, Nazir, who were friends of the deceased, were sleeping by the side of Mujju. P.W.2 Mukhtar had awaken those friends and then all of them carried deceased Mujju to Ghati Hospital, where he was declared dead. P.W.2 Mukhtar then made inquiry with those friends and then lodged first information report with the police station. On the basis of his report, offence vide Crime No.187 of 2013 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In the meantime, the accused was in the custody of police.

3. After the investigation was handed over to P.W.12 Ashok Sonawane, he executed spot panchanama Exhibit-65 with the help of two panchas and seized articles with the help of experts from the office of Assistant Director of Forensic Lab. He also prepared the inquest panchanama and body was sent for postmortem. He thereafter arrested the accused and seized his clothes. The blood sample of the accused was taken. There was seizure of clothes of deceased. Further the investigation appears to have been conducted by P.W.11 Balaji Sontakke. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. After the committal of the case, charge was framed against the accused and when he pleaded not guilty, trial has been conducted. Prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and tried to prove many documents. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge hold the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-. The said conviction is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. N. S. Ghanekar for the appellant and learned APP Mrs. V. S. Choudhari for the respondent - State.

5. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution story rests on circumstantial evidence as well as the alleged information given by the accused himself by going to the police station. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and accused were friends. They had gone to the construction site along with other friends. There was quarrel between deceased and accused when the deceased had checked the pant of accused. They all had consumed liquor. It was further submitted that there is no dispute that the death is homicidal, but whether the accused was t