The court established that a single credible witness's testimony can suffice for conviction, emphasizing the importance of assessing the accused's intention in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

Heard.

1. The appellants have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Case No.52/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 13.04.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, this appeal in terms of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”).

2. The appellants were charged for committing homicidal death amounting to murder of one Pramod in furtherance of their common intention. They were also charged for causing hurt to the prosecution witnesses and for the offence of criminal intimidation. The Trial Court has sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 3000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. Though accused No. 3 Kamal was jointly tried for aforesaid offences, however she was acquitted from all offences. The State has not challenged the acquittal of accused No.3 Kamal.

3. Appellant No.1 Ravindra (accused No.1) is father of appellant No.2 Ashish (accused No.2) and appellant No. 3 Vaibhav (accused No.4). Accused No.3 Kamal (acquitted) was wife of accused No.1 Ravindra. Accused No.1 Ravindra, accused No.2 Ashish and accused No.4 Vaibhav have been convicted for committing murder of their neighbour Pramod by means of sticks and sentenced as aforementioned.

4. The prosecution case can be stated in brief that the accused were neighbouring resident of deceased Pramod. The relations between accused and the family of deceased Pramod were strained on various count. The deceased had purchased house property from the brother of accused No.1 Ravindra for which there was a dispute. The daughter of deceased had also lodged a report against accused No. 4 Vaibhav for outraging her modesty in which Vaibhav was acquitted. Thus, there was a trite dispute between two families. On the background of such rival terms, the incident occurred.

5. At the instance of report lodged by informant Sangita Wankhede (wife of deceased), the crime has been registered. It is the prosecution case that the accused were neighbouring resident. Their relations were strained on account of rival proceedings. On 22.11.2014 around 10.00 a.m. informant Sangita was in the courtyard of her house. Deceased Pramod was about to leave the house by riding on motorcycle. The deceased took out motorcycle and went inside to wear shoes. At that time, all accused came to her house, and started to abuse and threatened to see the deceased Pramod. All of them were on the road in front of the house. Initially accused Vaibhav threw chilly powder at the person of deceased. It was followed by all accused assaulting deceased by means of wooden sticks. Informant came to the rescue of her husband, however accused No.4 Vaibhav dealt a stick blow at her waist. Informant’s daughter Kranti also intervened to whom accused Ravindra beat by means of stick causing her bleeding injury. Soon after the incident, deceased Pramod was shifted to the Rurla Hospital, Warud for medical treatment. Immediately, the informant rushed to the concerned Police Station Beloda, District Amravati for lodging the report.

6. On the basis of report (Exh. 48) lodged by the informant, Police registered crime for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, the Police have added Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The condition of Pramod was precarious, hence he was shifted to the Government Medical College, Nagpur, wh