Judgment (Oral)

D.D. Sinha, J. - Heard Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. The appellant-accused has challanged the judgment and finding of conviction recorded by the trial court in the present appeal for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Mr. Daga, learned counsel, contended that in the instant case the prosecution has examined eleven pro-secution witnesses. However, the mate-rial witnesses are Istari Sakharwade (PW-1), the father of the deceased, Shankar (PW-2), who claims to be an eye-witness to the incident, and is the elder brother of the deceased Some-shwar, Smt. Lalitabai (PW-3), the mother of the deceased, Smt. Gopika-bai (PW-4), another eye-witness, and Dr. Gopal (PW-8). It is contended that the other witnesses, i.e., Pisharam (PW-5) and Dnyaneshwar (PW-6) are the Panch witnesses examined by the prosecution in order to prove seizure of clothes of accused, Spot Pancha-nama, Inquest Panchanama respec-tively. Janba (PW-7) is a witness who tried to get an ambulance to carry the injured to the hospital. Gangadhar (PW-9) is the Police Constable, who