JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2012 thereby convicting appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has preferred instant appeal by invoking Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. The appellant was married to PW-6 Bharatbai. Out of their wedlock they had three daughters. Accused put up a demand of money for purchasing a Tempo. When fourth time also PW-6 was pregnant, at that time, accused insisted her to get the pregnancy terminated. PW-6 herself was not willing as well as her parents were against said termination. At the time of occurrence PW-6 was put up with her parents at their house. On 11.03.2012 appellant went to the place of his parents-in-law and again he insisted her to accompany him back, so as to enable him to get her pregnancy terminated. There was resistance to this count by PW-6 as well as parents-in-law. Getting annoyed by the same, it is the case of the prosecution that, accused took out knife which he was already carrying on his vehicle and he stabbed father-in-law. The injuries turned out to be fatal and he succumbed to the same and, therefore, complaint/FIR came to be lodged, on the strength of which crime was registered.

PW-13 Laxman Dnyanoba Kendre was entrusted with the investigation, during which he drew inquest panchanama, spot panchanama, got the postmortem done, recorded statements of witnesses under Sections 161 as well as 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Panchanamas of clothes of both deceased and accused were drawn. After completing investigation, he chargesheeted accused.

Case was on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, who frame and explain the charge Exhibit-10 and on its denial, he permitted prosecution to adduce evidence. Prosecution in support of their case has examined as many as thirteen witnesses and also relied on documentary evidence like FIR, inquest panchanama, postmortem report, spot panchanama etc.

After hearing both sides and on appreciating and analyzing the evidence on record, learned Trial Judge accepted the case of prosecution as proved and recorded guilt, which is now precisely questioned before us by appellant by invoking Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP. The following submissions are raised while questioning the case of the prosecution:

Submissions on behalf of appellant:

Firstly, there is no cogent and reliable evidence.

Secondly, motive is not established by the prosecution.

Thirdly, only interested witnesses are examined.

Fourthly, immediate neighbor has not supported prosecution.

Fifthly, panchanamas are not proved and are not free from doubt.

Sixthly, there is total non application of mind on the part of the learned Trial Judge in appreciating the evidence and applying the correct law.

Submissions on behalf of State:

4. Per contra, learned APP supported the conviction and would submit that there is overwhelming direct evidence of none other than PW-6 wife, PW-7 mother-in-law and even independent witness PW-8 Ramkishan. It is pointed out that occurrence was seen by them and they have accordingly deposed. Their evidence has remained unshaken. Accused went armed. He was apprehended after the occurrence at the very spot by the villagers. Therefore, it is submitted that with such quality of evidence, learned Trial Judge has committed no error whatsoever in recording guilt and he prays to dismiss the appeal.

5. In the light of above material, we proceed to sift the evidence placed before the learned Trial Judge by prosecution. The role, sum and substance of the prosecution case is as under:

EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION

PW-1 Prakash Niwrutti Bembde is Pancha to inquest panchanama. He had i