The prosecution must establish a clear link between motive and action in murder cases, with an emphasis on eyewitness reliability and the context of events leading to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

R.G. AVACHAT, J.

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of consequential sentence dated 21^st September, 2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-2, Latur (‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case, No. 65 of 2019. The appellant was the accused in the said case. He has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (‘I.P.C.’), and therefore, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The facts in brief, giving rise to the prosecution case, are as follows :-

The appellant is the resident of Latur. Lakhan (deceased) was one of his friends. Lakhan was debaucherous. He had illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant. In spite of having been reasoned with, Lakhan continued to keep the relationship. The appellant, therefore, called him to his workplace by 03:00 p.m. on 12^th April, 2019. Lakhan accordingly went to the appellant’s place. The appellant had already brought acidic liquid in one pot and splashed it on the person of Lakhan. Their two more friends were there. Drops of the acidic liquid also fell on their person. Lakhan started running away. The appellant chased him and assaulted on his back and stomach with the knife blows. The appellant then fled.

3. Lakhan was rushed to Government Hospital, Latur. On the following day he was shifted to Vivekanand Hospital. He, however breath his lat. Lakhan’s brother, PW 2 - Prashant lodged the First Information Report (‘F.I.R.’) (Exh.36) with Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur.

4. A crime, vide C.R. No. 163 of 2019 was registered. The appellant was arrested. Crime scene panchanama (Exh.27) was drawn. The container of acidic liquid and other articles were seized from the crime scene. Inquest and autopsy were conducted before registration of crime itself. Clothes on the person of both, the deceased and the appellant, were seized. The CCTV footage available at the shop in the vicinity of the crime scene were obtained. Transcript thereof was prepared in the presence of panchas. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant, a knife came to be recovered. All the seized articles were submitted to R.F.S.L., Nanded. Statements of the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.

5. The trial Court framed the charge (Exh.11). The appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was that the deceased was a womaniser. He had even illicit relationship with the wife of his real brother (Ram). When the brother realised the same, his wife committed suicide by setting her ablaze. Therefore, he (Ram) and his associates committed Lakha’s murder.

6. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined twelve witnesses and produced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order. The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 326-A of the I.P.C. There is no appeal against his acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the F.I.R. (Exh.35) was lodged twenty-four hours after the incident. The same suggests brother and relations of the deceased thought over the matter and falsely implicated the appellant. The F.I.R. (Exh.35) lodged by the real brother of the deceased was hit by hearsay. The informant was not an eye witness. Statement of PW 3 - Rajendra, so called eye witness, was recorded 10/12 days after the incident. He was maternal uncle of the deceased. Being a close relative, he allowed himself to be planted as an eye witness. His presence