J.B. PARDIWALA, J. - The present Appeal is at the instance of a convict accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 26th September 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla in Sessions Case No.16 of 2007. By the aforesaid order, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, sentenced him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. The learned Sessions Judge also convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. However, the learned Sessions Judge has not imposed any sentence or fine so far as the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act is concerned.

I. Case of the Prosecution :

2. P.W. 1-Bhaguben Exh.5 is the original first informant and the wife of the deceased. On 6th February 2007 PW1 Bhaguben lodged a First Information Report Exh.23 with Sagbara Police Station stating that she was residing at a place called Barktura at Taluka Sagbara with her husband, the deceased, and her children. At around 6 O’clock in the evening on the previous day of the incident, the deceased told the first informant – his wife that he was on his way to an agricultural field called as 'Dungarwala' field and saying so the deceased left the house. The first informant was doing her household work and at that point of time one Sariyabhai, a resident of the village, came at around 7 O’clock in the evening at the house of the first informant and informed that the accused had inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased with an axe and the deceased was lying on the ground. Sariyabhai also informed the first informant that the accused had run away from the place of incident with an axe in his hand. On learning this, the first informant along with her daughter, reached at the place of occurrence and saw the accused lying on the ground in a pool of blood. The first informant also noticed that her husband, the deceased, had sustained injuries on the left cheek, on the chest as well as on the head. On inquiring from the people who had gathered near the dead body of the deceased, the first informant was told that the accused came running with an axe in his hand and inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased. In the first information report, the first informant stated that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that her agricultural field and the agricultural field of the accused were adjoining to each other. In between the two fields on the edges, there were Teak trees and all the said Teak trees belonged to the first informant whereas the accused was also claiming to be the owner of the said Teak trees. In this regard, before around 7 years a quarrel had ensued and thereafter both the families kept on quarreling over the issue of grass grown on the edges between the two fields. However, with the intervention of few people of the village, the controversy was resolved between the two families. The first informant has stated that a day before the date of incident in the morning, the daughter-in-law of the accused cut few branches of the Teak trees for which the daughter-in-law of the first informant reprimanded the daughter-in-law of the accused. Keeping this in mind and out of spite and vengeance, the accused inflicted injuries on the deceased and caused his death.

2.1. On the strength of the FIR Exh.23 lodged by the PW1 Bhaguben w/o the deceased, the investigation commenced. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination and the postmortem examination revealed that the deceased had sustained a lacerated wound on left side of face as well as on the left oracle of neck. The cause of