JUDGMENT

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, J. - The appellant convict for offence under Sec. 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, is questioning the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 28/8/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2013.

PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT

2. As per the case of prosecution, telephonic information was received at Police Station in the early hours of morning of 14/6/2012 that a boy name Suraj was admitted at Primary Health Center, Dhoki in injured condition. On taking note of the same in Station Diary, PW12 Suryakant, Investigating Officer visited Primary Health Center, Dhoki, however, there he learnt that the boy was shifted and referred to Civil Hospital, Osmanabad and so he went there and recorded statement of Suraj.

Consequently, on the strength of the same, prosecution was launched against the accused on the premise that, accused was married to deceased and out of wedlock, they had a son namely Suraj, aged 16 years. Accused had grudge that his deceased wife Sumanbai was not behaving as per his wish. On such count, he used to beat her. On 13/6/2012, the accused, his wife and their minor son worked in the field for the entire day and after returning home, they had their dinner and went to sleep. Accused picked up quarrel with his wife and said that she was not behaving properly and that she repeatedly went to her maternal home. He initially gave her kick and fist blows and thereafter assaulted his wife with axe and koyta. Minor Suraj who was sleeping with his mother woke up and requested his father to spare his mother but the accused hit minor also on his head, chin, left ear and left hand. Thereafter, the accused went out of the house and closed the house from the outside. After regaining conscious, the minor Suraj managed to dismantle the tin sheet and came out of the room and thereafter, he initially went to his parental uncle Haridas, informed him about the incident and thereafter he went to his grand parents alongwith whom he visited Primary Health Centre. On the basis of his statement given to police at PHC Crime No. 50/2012 was registered for the offence under Sec. 302, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Investigation was carried out by the concerned investigating officer i.e. P.W. 12 who visited the room, prepared spot panchanama, thereafter inquest panchnama was drawn and dead body was referred for postmortem and report was gathered. The investigating officer recorded the statement and supplementary statement of relevant witnesses; seizure was caused; clothes of deceased were gathered. The accused came to be arrested, necessary panchanamas were also drawn and after gathering sufficient evidence against the accused, the accused came to be charge-sheeted.

4. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the Sessions Court and ultimately was on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who framed the charge, explained it to the accused and on denial of charge, the trial was undertaken. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses. That apart, the postmortem report, various panchanamas, C.A. report, seizure panchanamas were also relied by the prosecution.

After hearing both sides, and after examining oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court reached to a finding that the prosecution has established the charges only for the offence under Sec. 302 and 234 and accordingly held the accused guilty and sentenced him as per the operative order. It is the conviction which is taken exception to by the accused on various grounds raised in the appeal.

5. The instant appeal is under Sec. 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code which empowers the appellate court to re-appreciate, reanalyze, reassess the evidence adduced by the prosecution and to ascertain whether the judgment under challenge is just, legal and proper.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Witnesses