The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sec. 299, Sec. 300, and Exception 4 to Sec. 300 of the IPC in determining the nature of the offence committed by the appellant.

JUDGMENT

V.G.BISHT,J. - The appellant - original accused Arun Appaso Dange has preferred this appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C. for short) challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur, in Sessions Case No.16 of 2008 dtd. 7/9/2011 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and sentenced him life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000.00 and in default to deposit the amount of fine, ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The trial Court was, however, pleased to acquit the appellant and another accused, namely, Sou. Prabhavati Appasaheb Dange of the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 498A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC. This acquittal is challenged by the complainant Avinash Mane by filing Appeal No.654 of 2012. Therefore, both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that informant, namely, Avinash Shankar Mane, is uncle of deceased Vidya @ Sushma (deceased for short). The deceased was married to appellant. Out of the said wedlock, the appellant has two sons, namely, Vivek and Dnyanesh. Another accused Prabhavati is mother-in-law of the deceased. Initially, for some years, the deceased was treated well. The appellant, however, used to take handloan from time to time from the brother of the informant. The prosecution alleges that since a year prior to lodging of the report, the appellant started abusing and beating the deceased on the ground of demand of monies. The deceased used to narrate her sufferings whenever she used to visit her matrimonial home. Therefore, at times, the deceased along with her sons used to reside with her parents. However, on an assurance given by the appellant that he would treat the deceased well, the appellant used to take back the deceased.

3. According to the prosecution, on 16/4/2008, at about 7.05 p.m., nephew of informant, namely, Bhushan Vilas, rang him on his mobile and told that he had received a phone call from Vivek i.e. the son of the deceased informing him that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on her head and that the deceased is lying in a pool of blood. The informant and others rushed to the house of the appellant. They found the deceased lying in a pool of blood and was dead.

4. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered vide Crime No.42 of 2008 with Kurudwadi Police Station, Kolhapur, for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 read with 34 of the IPC. The investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer (PW11) who prepared Spot panchnama, Seizure panchnama of various articles seized from the spot and recorded statements of witnesses.

5. PW7 Police Constable Sandeep Gaikwad carried the muddemal property to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Pune.

6. PW10 Dr. Nagnath Chougule conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and noted external and internal injuries and opined that the deceased had died due to shock due to intracerebral hemorrhage with fracture skull due to hard and sharp weapon.

7. On completion of investigation, police filed chargesheet against the appellant and the accused (acquitted) under Ss. 302, 498A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and committed the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisingpur, District Kolhapur.

8. To substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The appellant was questioned under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and the appellant denied all of them as false. According to him, he had not committed any offence and at the relevant time was not present in the house. Similarly, acquitted accused, namely, Prabhavati also denied the incriminating evidence appearing against her as