The conviction of the appellants for murder and attempted murder was upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and established motive, despite minor inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

R.G. AVACHAT, J.

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of conviction and consequential sentence, dated 06/12/2023, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad in Special Case No.28/2020. Vide impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein have been convicted and consequently sentenced as detailed below:

Along with these appellants, two more persons were tried. One of them was for harbouring the appellants when the other one for committing the offence along with the appellants herein. Both of them have been acquitted. Neither the State nor the victim has preferred appeal against their acquittal.

2. The facts in brief, giving rising to the present appeal are as follows :-

The appellants are the real brothers. They would reside at village Lakh-Khandala along with their family members. Appellant Devidas has a grown-up daughter - “P” (name withheld). P.W.1 Alkabai along with her husband Balasaheb (P.W.2) and their two sons – Amol and Bhimraj were residing in a house constructed by them on their land. The houses of both, the informant and the appellants were nearby of each other. Amol was a grown-up son of the informant. About 4 days before the incident dated 14/3/2020, Amol left the house under the pretext of going for work. He did not return. The daughter of Devidas too went missing from the very day. The appellant suspected her to have eloped with Amol. They along with two others had, therefore been to the house of the informant and threatened them with dire consequences, if their daughter did not return safe immediately.

3. By little past 8.00 p.m. on 14 March, both Alkabai and Balasaheb were sitting on the Otla of their house after their dinner was over. Their son Bhimraj (deceased) was sleeping in the house. Both the appellants came to their house, armed with sharp weapons. They first mounted attack on Balasaheb. Alkabai intervened to save her husband. She too was not spared. Both Alkabai and Balasaheb started running with a fear. They reached the house of Dadasaheb, brother of Balasaheb. Both had suffered multiple injuries. While running away, they heard the screams of Bhimraj. Due to fear, they did not return to save Bhimraj. Dadasaheb rushed Alkabai and Balasaheb to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad in a mini-tempo. On the following morning, after having verified Alkabai to have been conscious, police recorded her statement-cum-F.I.R. Within hours of the assault on both of them, it was realised that, Bhimraj was done to death with sharp weapon/s. Mortal remains of Bhimraj was rushed to the hospital. It was subjected to inquest and autopsy.

4. The crime was investigated. The crime scene panchanama was drawn. Blood spots were collected from crime scene. The appellants were arrested. The appellant Devidas made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which a sickle came to be recovered besides a motorbike, ash of burnt clothes etc. The clothes on the person of deceased/ injured and the appellants were seized. The seized articles were forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Statements of persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

5. The Trial Court framed the Charge (Exh.33). appellants pleaded not guilty. Their defence was of false impli