K.J. THAKER, J.

1. The appellant-ori. Accused has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated30.6.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari in Sessions Case No. 84/2007, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellants-ori. Accused under sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The appellant is also convicted under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to undergo R/I for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, which is impugned in this appeal.

2.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 20.9.2007 at about 19.30 hours in the evening, when deceased Motaliben @ Maniben wd/o Ukabhai Lavjibhai refused to give meal to the appellant, the appellant got excited and assaulted the deceased with stick. The appellant had given stick blows on the left hand and right leg. The appellant had also given kick and fist blows upon the deceased, due to which she became unconscious. Thereafter, she was taken to the Navsari Civil Hospital in a tractor, where doctor had declared her dead. Therefore, a complaint was lodged.

2.2 The appellant accused came to be arraigned for committing murder. The investigation being complete, the charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 84/2007.

2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed the charge below Exh. 1 against the appellant for commission of the offence under section 302 of IPC and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant-accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.4 To prove the case against the present appellant, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses whose evidence is read before this Court by the learned advocate for the appellant.

1. PW-1 Pranav Arvind Patel Ex. 6

2. PW-2 Jagdishbhai Govindbhai Patel Ex. 9

3. PW-3 Vijaybhai Balubhai Patel Ex. 18

4. PW-4 Tusharbhai Rameshbhai Patel Ex. 19

5. PW-5 Nareshbhai Lallubhai Patel Ex. 20

6. PW-6 Ajitkumar Manubhai Parmar Ex. 22

2.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documentary evidences so as to bring home the charges against the appellant-accused.

1. Complaint Ex. 23

2. Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 11

3. Inquest panchnama Ex. 12

4. Panchnama of weapon Ex. 21

5. Panchnama of clothes of dead-body Ex. 13

6. Arrest panchnama E. 14

7. PM report Ex. 7

8. Certificate of cause of death Ex. 8

9. FSL Report Ex. 17

10. Serological report Ex. 26

11. Report of FSL, Surat Ex. 27

12. Notification Ex. 28

13. Copy of Entry no. 2 of station diary Ex. 25

3. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution.

4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.6.2008 held the present appellant-original accused guilty of the charge levelled against him under sec. 302 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above.

5. We have heard at length learned advocate Mr. P.B. Goswami learned advocate for appellant and Ms CM Shah learned APP for the respondent-State.

6. The learned advocate for the present appellant has contended that the trial court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as it failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective, and hence, the present appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and be acquitted.

7. On the other hand, learned APP has strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the present appellants and has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order after taking into consideration the fa