The admissibility of partially hostile witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.) :

1. Vide instant appeal exception is taken to the Judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded dated 14.01.2019, convicting appellant Santosh for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one month.

2. In brief, prosecution was launched by Ardhapur Taluka police Station, alleging civil dispute between accused Santosh and deceased Gunaji in the backdrop of some partition of land. According to prosecution, incident took place on 29.04.2016, in which present appellant allegedly assaulted deceased by means of iron spade and wooden log. Informant reported the occurrence to the police, who registered crime bearing no.77 of 2016, which was investigated by PW9 PSI Avachar and PW10 API Dantulwar, respectively and Ardhapur police challaned appellant with charge of 302 of IPC. This was followed by trial by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, who, on appreciating the evidence on record, vide judgment dated 14.01.2019 held charges proved and passed the impugned Judgment of conviction, which is questioned before us by way of instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS

Appellant :

3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that, apparently there is no convincing evidence regarding alleged occurrence. He pointed out that, motive attributed is some quarrel on account of partition, but he would point out that there is no oral and documentary evidence on this point. According to him, here, informant himself has not supported prosecution and therefore, he submits that, very case of prosecution was rendered weak. That, even very wife of deceased PW5 Rukhminibai has not supported prosecution. That, none of independent witnesses also have supported prosecution, i.e. PW3 Manoj. He pointed out that only evidence of PW8 Shankar has been taken into account and relied by learned trial Judge. However, answers given by this witness in cross are not taken into account. Thus, it is his submission that, there was little or weak evidence, however, learned trial Judge has still accepted the prosecution evidence and believed the prosecution story and in absence of cogent and reliable evidence, guilt has been recorded. Therefore, he prays for re-appreciation and re-analysis of evidence and to allow the appeal.

Prosecution :-

4. In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that, it is true that, informant has resiled and was apparently won over, still there was evidence of PW8 Shankar and which was inspiring confidence. Evidence of informant PW1 Suresh, PW3 Manoj and PW5 Rukhaminibai though hostile, as per settled law, it need not be discarded in its entirety and so much part of it, which is corroborating prosecution story can be relied and same has been rightly applied by the learned trial Judge. Death is shown to be homicidal one. There being direct evidence, story of prosecution is rightly accepted by learned trial Judge and so she would submit that, no fault can be found in the appreciation and conclusion drawn by learned trial Court and so she prays to dismiss the appeal.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

5. In the light of above submissions, we wish to define the status and role of prosecution witnesses :-

PW1 Suresh is the informant. His testimony is at Exh.12. He has not supported prosecution.

PW2 Dnyaneshwar is pancha to spot panchanama, at Exh.17.

PW3 Manoj is immediate neighbour, also did not support the prosecution.

PW4 Gajanan is the carrier, who carried seized Muddemal to the Analyzer.

PW5 Rukhaminibai is a wife of deceased Gunaji, but she has not supported prosecution.

PW6 Dr. Ranjana Deshmukh is the autopsy doctor, who conducted postmortem and issued report (Exh.30).

PW7 Satish Gaikwad is Police Inspector, who registered crime bearing no.77 of 2016.

PW8 Shankar is an independent witness. His statement is at Exh.45.

PW9 PSI Avachar and PW10 API Dantulwar, respectively a