SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 8th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2012, Dated: 14.02.2013, in connection with the FIR registered as I-C.R. No. 94 of 2011, with Morva (H) Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1881 (for short, ‘the IPC’) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfurled is as follows:

Paruben, the widow of the deceased Arjunbhai, was residing at Taviyad Faliya, at Morva. Her husband was the eldest amongst the siblings, whereas, the appellant was the youngest and was residing with his parents, he being unmarried. The father of the deceased had partitioned the agricultural land amongst all the siblings. Out of the same, the deceased was holding one portion of the land and the appellant was holding another portion, whereas, their parents and other brothers were holding the rest. Both the deceased and the appellants also used to raise the cattle.

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that a buffalo owned by the deceased, entered the field of the appellant and caused damage to the standing crop of paddy. On account of that, acrimonious exchanges between the appellant and the deceased took place.

2.2 On 28.08.2011, at around 11:00 a.m., the deceased told his wife that he was going to Dangariya Gidra Faliya for some work. In the evening, at about 07:00 p.m., she heard shouts near the house of her father-in-law. Therefore, she rushed to that place along with her daughter. On her reaching there, she found that her brother-in-law, i.e. the appellant, was giving threat to her husband and he also inflicted blows on him with a wooden stick. Consequently, her husband, fell down and started bleeding. The brother-in-law continued to inflict blows, and therefore, the complainant along with her daughter rushed to the police station and intimated the police force about the incident and conveyed that her husband needed immediate medical treatment and help.

2.3 The injured was then taken to the hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment. Therefore, an FIR being I-C.R. No. 94 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the B.P. Act on 28.08.2011, itself.

On completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, which eventually committed it before the Sessions Court, Panchmahal at Godhra, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 1 of 2012.

2.4 At the time of trial, the charges were explained to the appellant-accused. However, he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.5 The prosecution, therefore, examined as many as 21 witnesses to bring home the charges framed against the appellant. The details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are as under:

PROSECUTI ON WITNESS NUMBER	NAME OF THE WITNESS	Role / Identity of Witness	EXHIB IT NUMBER
1	Dr. Anil Ratansinh Makwana,	Medical Officer, Who had carried out the PM of the person of the deceased	5
2	Ashokbhai Shankarbhai Taviyad,	Witness of the inquest panchnama of the person of the deceased	9
3	Dr. Rameshchandra Kodarji Chauhan,	Medical Officer, who had given treatment to the injured	11
4	Himmatsinh Anopsinh Chauhan,	Witness of the panchnama of seizure of clothes of the deceased	17
5	Hasmukhbhai Mohansinh Bariya	Witness of the inquest panchnama of the person of the deceased	22
6	Ranjansinh Mansukhbhai Patel	Witness of the panchnama of the place of offence	23
7	Kiritsinh Punambhai Parg