The court affirmed the conviction for murder and assault, emphasizing the reliability of eye-witness testimony and medical evidence confirming the homicidal nature of death.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. This Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 98/2020, convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing as under:

(a) Suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only), in default to pay fine, suffer simple imprisonment for Six months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

(b) Suffer rigorous imprisonment for Three Years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only), in default to pay fine, suffer simple imprisonment for Two Months for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C.

2. The Prosecution’s case as revealed from the Police Report is as under:

2.1. Chhayabai Raosaheb Panchal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Deceased’) was the wife of the Informant, Raosaheb Keshav Panchal. They were residing at Malegaon, Tal. Umri, Dist. Nanded with their son Satyam. They were having their agricultural field at Umri, which was at a distance of 5 km from Malegaon. The Appellant’s agricultural field was adjacent to their field at Umri. The Appellant used to frequently talk with the Deceased on the mobile phone and trouble her. The Informant asked the Appellant not to call his wife and on that count, their relations got sour. On 06.04.2020, the Informant, the Deceased and their son went to their agricultural field on motorcycle. When the Informant, the Deceased and their son were returning to Malegaon in the evening around 07:00 pm to 07:15 pm on their motorcycle, the Appellant came on his motorcycle and assaulted the Deceased by means of Katti on her chin and neck. When the Informant intervened, he was also assaulted by the Appellant on his head and forehead. The Deceased and the Informant fell on the road. Their son Satyam sought help and both the injured were admitted to the hospital. The Ardhapur Police Station was informed about their admission in the hospital. The Police came to the hospital. Doctor certified that the Informant was conscious and was able to give statement and so his statement was recorded wherein he narrated the incident. The Deceased succumbed to the injuries. The dead body was referred for post mortem. Post mortem revealed cause of death as “Haemorrhagic Shock due to injury to neck, Homicidal in nature.” Crime came to be registered against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”).

3. The Investigating Officer conducted the Spot Panchanama, Inquest and seized the clothes of the Deceased. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The Appellant was also admitted in the hospital as he met with an accident. The Katti was seized from the spot where the accident of the Appellant took place. The Appellant came to be arrested. The clothes of the Informant and the Appellant came to be seized. The articles seized during the investigation were referred for chemical analysis. On completion of the investigation, the Appellant came to be Charge-sheeted.

4. On committal, the learned Trial Court framed the Charge against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC vide Exh.6, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As the reports of Chemical Analyzer were received subsequently, they were submitted before the learned Trial Court. To prove the Charge, the prosecution examined in all ten (10) witnesses and brought on record the relevant documents. On completion of the prosecution’s evidence, statement of the Appellant came to be recorded pursuant to the provisions of Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The Appellant denied the case and evidence of the prosecution and examined one Harpalsingh Kulwantsingh Khed as the Defence Witness.