The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimonies to establish guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.) :

1. Appellant Mukund, is hereby taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Case No.120 of 2014, by which he is held guilty for commission of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Prosecution conducted trial against the appellant on the premise that, appellant/accused and informant Narayan are brothers. Their father Digambar owned house property and landed property. Informant Narayan occupied some part of the residential house, whereas appellant/accused Mukund occupied the other part. Appellant was a divorcee and thereby he resided alone. Entire property owned by late Digambar stood in the name of his wife. However, informant Narayan managed the entire property. Appellant accused Mukund earned for his livelihood by working in a hotel. As mother Laxmibai sold some portion of the land and did not share the sale proceeds with accused appellant, he was upset and therefore, relations between them were not cordial.

According to prosecution, on 23.07.2014, at around 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., appellant came drunk and demanded money for consuming liquor and on refusal he threatened to kill son of informant. According to prosecution, appellant/accused executed the threat by snatching the baby from the waist of wife of informant (PW-2) and holding the child by feet and he flung and struck the baby forcefully on the floor which was built up by cement concrete. The child suffered head injury and was shifted to hospital of Dr. Jadhav hospital, who advised the child to be taken to Parbhani and there on examination the child was declared dead. Hence, PW-1 Narayan informant lodged report (Exh.15) against his brother.

3. After investigation appellant was made to face trial before learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. In support of its case prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses. Defence of appellant was denial and false implication. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge held appellant guilty and sentenced him as stated above.

Feeling aggrieved by above judgment of conviction, appellant has preferred instant appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

SUBMISSIONS

4. The sum and substance of the argument advanced before us by learned counsel for appellant is that, there is no clear cogent evidence in support of the charges framed against accused appellant. Admitting relations inter se between accused and witnesses, it is his submission that since beginning there were disputes in the family on account of share from the sale proceeds received out of sale transaction of agricultural land. Therefore, relations not being cordial, there was false implication to deliberately exclude appellant accused from the interest in the family property. Taking us through the evidence of brother, mother and the answers given by these witnesses in cross- examination, learned counsel submitted that their testimonies are not consistent or inspiring confidence.

5. He would next submits that evidence on record suggested that accused was taking treatment for some mental disorder. That, prosecution’s own witnesses admit to that extent. Consequently, it is submitted that a very different approach was expected from learned trial Judge while appreciating the prosecution evidence, but learned trial Judge failed to consider and appreciate the same and had arrived to erroneous conclusion. He also hastened to add that the possibility of child accidentally falling and suffering injuries has not been denied by medico legal expert. However, learned trial Judge overlooked such aspects of the evidence also.

6. It is strenuously submitted that, there were material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution, but the same is not properly appreciated and considered by learned trial Judge.

Con