The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of the accused's inculpatory statement to the police under Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 12/6/2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2010 by which conviction was recorded for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE SESSIONS CASE

2. Appellant accused has a sister. Deceased Salim had taken her photographs and, according to father of accused, deceased was showing the photographs to others and informing that he would marry her. On hearing this from father, accused Chandpasha came from Nanded on 21/11/2008. On 23/11/2008, while deceased Salim was travelling in the rickshaw of PW3 Sk. Amar, near Mari Aai Temple, accused held deceased by his collar, pulled him out of the rickshaw and questioned him for taking photographs of his sister. On same count, he whisked out jambiya (kinfe) and inflicted stabs on Salim. Injured Salim was taken to the hospital, however he succumbed to the injuries.

3. Accused himself surrendered at police station and gave statement which was recorded by PW9 PI Shingade. Crime came to be registered on the strength of the same. Accused was arrested. The knife in his possession was also seized and PW12 PI Kasture carried out investigation and filed charge sheet.

4. Case came to be committed on the file of learned Sessions Judge and therein prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence and after hearing respective parties and on appreciating the evidence, learned Sessions Judge held accused guilty and convicted him as stated above. Now exception has been taken by accused to the above judgment and order on various grounds raised in the appeal memo. SUBMISSIONS

5. The sum and substance of the arguments raised before us by learned Advocate for the appellant is that learned trial court has failed to consider and appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective. According to him, here, though case of prosecution is of direct evidence, it is pointed out that cross-examination of so-called direct eye witness PW3 Sk. Amar creates doubt about occurrence. That, evidence of PW3 being shaky, ought not to have been accepted, more particularly when there was no corroboration to the testimony of PW3 Sk. Amar. Secondly, it is put forth that even prosecution could not cogently and firmly establish motive behind the occurrence. That, evidence of prosecution is full of contradictions and omissions. Testimony of pancha witnesses is also not trustworthy and reliable. Rather all pancha witnesses are either got up witnesses or are related witnesses. Thirdly, the alleged statement of deceased also ought not to have been relied by learned trial court because there was clear evidence of medical expert that condition of deceased was poor and as such, he was not in a position to give dying declaration. Therefore, even dying declaration ought not to have been relied. Fourthly, statement given by accused which is inculpatory and that too allegedly given to police machinery, is not valid in the eyes of law. It is submitted that, however, learned trial court failed to appreciate the legal position on that count. That, entire story of prosecution being doubtful, benefit of doubt ought to have been given, but learned trial court has failed to do so. It is lastly prayed that the appeal be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the following rulings:

1. Mahavir Raghunathrao Hulungare v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in .

2. Iqbal Ahmed Kallan Khan and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in . 3. Khema and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in .

4. Ramanand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in SC/1324/2022. 5. Md. Jabbar Ali and Ors. v. The St