The need for the evidence of an eye-witness to be reliable and proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused in case of discrepancies and lack of corroboration.

JUDGMENT

SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. - The Appellants herein are convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 and 447 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000.00 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon in Sessions Case No. 112 of 2014 vide judgment and order dtd. 19/1/2016. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:-

a) The Shewale family owns about 5.5 acre of irrigated agricultural land in Gat No. 218 / 1 at Village Nagaon, Tal-Malegaon. The Shewale family consists of Nimba Shewale, his wife Taibai, their sons Samadhan, Gorakh and Ganesh and daughter-in-law Poonam wife of Samadhan. The land is cultivated by Samadhan whereas Gorakh and Nimba are engaged in plying rickshaw. The accused -appellants are also agriculturalists and their land is situated on the eastern side of agricultural land of Shewale. The accused have constructed a bungalow in their field and reside there. There was a dispute between the Shewale family and the family of the accused on account of a common way through the agricultural land. There used to be intermittent quarrels between both the families over the common way. A civil suit was also pending.

b) On 13/6/2014 at about 6.30 p.m., Samadhan was engaged in ploughing in agricultural land. Nimba and Poonam were at home. That Taibai, mother of Samadhan saw an altercation between Vijay, Suresh and Samadhan in her agricultural land. When she was on her way to give drinking water to Samadhan that Suresh had caught hold of Samadhan from front side whereas accused stabbed him with a sword stick on the back. When they saw Taibai, Vijay drew the Gupti from the back of Samadhan and fled from the spot. Thereafter, Samadhan was taken to Girna Hospital by their rickshaw. On admission he was declared dead. Doctor from Girna Hospital informed the police station officer at Malegaon Taluka Police Station about the demise of Samadhan.

The statement of Samadhan could not be recorded as he was declared dead. At the hospital Taibai narrated the incident to the police. On the basis of which, Crime No. 146 of 2014 was registered. Investigation was set in motion and charge-sheet was filed.

c) At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

3. PW.1 - Taibai Shewale claims to be sole eye-witness to the incident of assault. According to her, the incident took place on 13 th June 2014 at about 6.00 to 6.30p.m. She had seen the accused abusing and assaulting Samadhan. According to her, she was proceeding towards the agricultural land to provide water to Samadhan. Soon after, she was noticed the accused fled from the spot. In the meanwhile, Gorakh reached the spot in an auto-rickshaw, while Samadhan was lying in a pool of blood. That they took Samadhan to Girna hospital in the auto-rickshaw. Doctor informed her about the demise of Samadhan. After sometime the police arrived in the hospital and the incident was narrated by her. The police had obtained her thumb impressions and signature of Gorakh Shewale and Sagar Bacchav on her statement. The said statement is marked at 'Exhibit-27 '. That according to her, the spot of incident was shown by her to the police. The spot was guarded during the night. The panchnama was conducted on the next day. The sandal of her son was lying on the spot of incident. The Gupti i.e. the sword stick was lying near the sandal and one rexin cover was lying at a distance of 9 to 10 feet from the spot where Samadhan was lying in a pool of blood. The statement of PW.1-Taibai was also recorded under sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. and marked at 'Exhibit-28 '. She has further stated that four days after the incident, the police had enquired with her and she had narrated the incident to the police.

4. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the accused are owner of the adjacent land