The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the need for complete and conclusive evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd December 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.113/2014, convicting and sentencing the appellant, as under :

- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer RI for 2 years;

- for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months;

- Both the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under :

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 18th February 2014, in which the appellant quarrelled with the deceased in the deceased's Eeco car and assaulted him with a sickle on his neck. It is the prosecution case, that after the assault, the deceased ran towards PW3's hotel i.e. Amit Hotel, and disclosed to him that four persons had assaulted him. Pursuant thereto, PW3 lodged an FIR (Exhibit 17) on the very same day i.e. on 18th February 2014 at 6:45 a.m. Thereafter, inquest and spot panchnamas were prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem. It is further the prosecution case, that the appellant thereafter, took a lift from PW12-Tukaram Jadhav, a truck driver and made an extra-judicial confession to him i.e. he had killed the deceased with a sickle. On 20th February 2014, the appellant was arrested and a mobile phone was seized from his person. The said mobile phone is stated to be that of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellant made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to which, sickle was recovered at his instance.

After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC'). Since the offence under Section 302 was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

Charge was framed as against the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 17 witnesses i.e. PW1-Dashrath Pawar, Panch to the spot panchnama and the seizure of Eeco vehicle; PW2-Swapnil Jadhav, Panch to the inquest panchanama; PW3-Amit Pawar, complainant (owner of Amit Hotel), to whom an oral dying declaration was made; PW4-Rajendra Pawar, Panch to the spot panchnama; PW5-Atul Jadhav, Panch to the arrest and seizure panchnama; PW6-Ramchandra Pawar, Panch to the recovery of sickle at the instance of the appellant; PW7-Shankar Ghadge, Panch to the recovery panchnama i.e. recovery of sickle at the instance of the appellant; PW8-Amit Salunkhe, Panch for the seizure of CCTV footage from Anewadi Toll Naka; PW9-Nilesh Babar, who saw the deceased, soon after the assault; PW10-Dr. Sandip Yadav, the doctor who performed the post-mortem on the deceased; PW11- Ajay Ahivale, to whom an extra-judicial confession was made (the said witness has turned hostile); PW12-Tukaram Jadhav, to whom an extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant (PW12 is the truck driver who ferried the appellant, after the assault); PW13-Atul Patel, waiter of Amit Hotel (the said witness had neither seen nor heard anything and as such, his evidence is of not much consequence); PW14-Ranjit Yadav, who last saw the deceased, in front of Aaram hotel, in his vehicle at 2:45 a.m; PW15-Vinay Charwad, the nephew of the deceased, who identified the deceased's Samsung mobile phone; PW16-Ravi Pardeshi, Nodal Officer, working in a mobile company-Vodafone Cellular Limited (admittedly, no tower location has been brought on record through this Nodal Officer); and PW17-Hemant Shedge, the Investigating Officer.

4. Ms. Roy, learned couns