IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that oral dying declarations are weak evidence and require corroboration, particularly in the absence of direct evidence and clear motive, to sustain a conviction under serious charges such as murder.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. - Present appellant is the original accused, who challenges his conviction in Sessions Case No.22 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, District-Ahmednagar on 10/2/2017, wherein he has been held guilty of committing offence punishable under Sec. 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Informant Farjana Rafiq Maniyar, is the widow of deceased Rafiq. She has lodged the First Information Report (for short 'FIR') on 6/5/2011 with Shirdi Police Station in respect of an incident which has allegedly taken place around 9.45 p.m. of 5/5/2011. It is informed that around 9.30 p.m. of 5/5/2011 deceased Rafiq and his entire family members were taking dinner. While the dinner was going on, Rafiq received telephonic call. He finished of the dinner and left the house. Prior to that, on inquiry by PW-2 Farjana, deceased Rafiq told that the call was from the accused and he has been called by the accused to fetch him as accused was not having the vehicle and was standing near Vruddhashram on Kankuri road. Rafiq left the house by taking his motorcycle. When the family members were about to sleep, PW-2 Farjana received phone call from Rafiq informing that he has been assaulted by a sharp edged weapon by accused and his associates. Thereafter, PW-2 Farjana, PW-3 Peer Mohammad @ Baba, brother of the deceased, went to the spot. It is also the prosecution story that another brother of Rafiq i.e. PW-4 Munnabhai resides at Shirdi and he was also informed about the incident by deceased Rafiq on phone and therefore, he also reached at the said place and they could find Rafiq lying by the side of the road in injured condition. Blood was oozing from his injuries. Thereafter all of them made arrangements to take injured to Saibaba Hospital at Shirdi. Primary treatment was given but the condition of Rafiq was serious and therefore, the doctor advised that the injured should be taken to either Loni or at Nashik. The family members then shifted Rafiq to the hospital at Nashik. When the FIR was lodged vide Crime No. 74 of 2011, it came to be registered under Sec. 326, 323 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After registration of the offence, investigation was taken up. On the next day i.e. 6/5/2011 itself Rafiq succumbed to the injuries at Nashik. The local Police had got the inquest panchnama prepared and then dead body was sent for postmortem. PW-11 Dr. Bandopadhyay carried out the postmortem and gave report. Panchnama of the spot came to be executed and certain articles were seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and it was then revealed that only accused was involved in the crime and not any other person. The accused has led the discovery and thereby discovered the murder weapon i.e. knife and also his clothes, which came to be seized by executing the panchnama. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed only against one person i.e. present appellant.

4. After committal of the case, prosecution has examined in all fourteen witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge has held that the offence has been proved under Sec. 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant - accused has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2, 000.00, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences were directed to be run concurrently. This is the Judgment and order challenged in the present Appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chapalgaonkar appearing for the a