The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

1. By this appeal, the appellant (the accused) has challenged judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gondia (learned Judge of the trial court) in Sessions Trial No.72/2016.

2. By the said judgment impugned in this appeal, the accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine Rs.2000/- in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 2 months.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(A) The accused is father of Anmol (the deceased). He was residing along with his wife Dayawantabai, the deceased, another son Shailesh, and daughter Sangita. On 24.8.2016, during the night, the deceased demanded Rs.500/- from the accused and the accused told him that he is not having that much amount. On the next day, i.e. 25.8.2016, again, the deceased demanded amount to his father. He has also demanded amount Rs.20/- from his mother for recharging the mobile phone. After obtaining the money for recharging the mobile phone, the deceased was sitting at “chhapri” of the house and the accused was also sitting there. The deceased asked Rs.500/- as he was intending to go to Nagpur. The accused asked the deceased for what he is in need of such amount and festivals of “Marbat” and “Pola” are coming and he is not having such amount. The accused also abused the deceased and there was a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the accused went inside the house and again came in “chhapri” along with an “axe” and gave a blow of the “axe” on the head of the deceased. Due to the blow, the deceased sustained head injury. The “axe” was stuck in the head of the deceased. The mother of the deceased shouted for help. By hearing her shouts, neighbour came there. Son Shailesh pushed the accused and took out the “axe” from the head of the deceased. Again, the accused has snatched the said “axe.” Dayawantabai approached Police Patil and narrated the incident. Subsequently, though the deceased was taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injury on 26.8.2016. On the basis of the said report, the police registered the crime against the accused.

(B) After registration of the crime, the investigating officer visited the spot of the incident and drawn spot panchanama. The incriminating article weapon “axe” used in the commission of the offence was seized from the spot itself. The accused was arrested. The blood stained clothes of the deceased and the accused were seized. Inquest panchanama was drawn. The incriminating articles were forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused.

(C) After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia has framed charge against the accused vide Exh.6. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(D) In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined in 15 witnesses, they are as follows:

(E) Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution placed reliance on documentary evidence report Exh.15, spot panchanama Exh.18, seizure memo Exh.19, clothes seizure memo Exh.20, seizure memo Exhs.21-23, postmortem report Exh.27, medical certificate Exh.29, the FIR Exh.32, seizure memo Exh.37, inquest panchanama Exh.41, CA Reports Exhs.47-48, and intimation to police Exh.55.

(F) On