Direct evidence from eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt in murder cases, provided the testimonies are credible and consistent.

J U D G M E N T

PER MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.:-

1. The appellant herein has been convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 20th February 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 97 of 2014. The appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.), 1860, and is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the present Appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973.

2. The brief facts leading to the present proceeding can be summarized as under:

According to the prosecution, the informant- Surekha Murkute was residing in a joint family of her husband. Her real sister Sarika was married to her brother-in-law. The said brother-in-law was idle and was not doing any work. He was addicted to liquor. He used to demand money from his parents for consuming liquor. On refusal, he used to pick up quarrel with his family members. On the fateful day, i.e. on 29th October 2013, the accused/appellant demanded money from his parents for visiting ‘Balaji’. When they refused, he quarreled with them. Since he was abusing his parents, they left the house and went to the field. The informant- Surekha, her sister Sarika (deceased) as well as their children and the accused were present in the house. At around 11:00 a.m., the accused demanded keys of the sliding gate from Sarika. When she informed that she did not know the whereabouts of the keys, the accused demanded money for liquor. When she expressed her inability to give him money, the accused abused her. The accused then proceeded to the storeroom and came back to the hall, carrying toppling (an equipment which is used for joining tractor with the trolley) in his hand. While the accused was taking the said toppling from the storeroom, he was seen by Nikita, who is his niece. Nikita also inquired, as to where the accused was taking the said toppling, without answering her query, he proceeded towards the house. The accused entered the house and assaulted his wife Sarika. On hearing cries, the informant- Surekha, who was sitting in the adjacent bedroom as well as Nikita from her house rushed towards the hall, and saw the accused giving blows with the toppling on Sarika’s head.

On observing the deadly scene before them, they got frightened and Nikita ran outside the house and shouted for help. In the meanwhile, the accused left the house leaving the toppling in the courtyard of the house. In response to the shouts given by Nikita, one Balu Namdev Shitole rushed to the scene of offence and took Sarika to Pawna Hospital, where she was declared dead. On receiving information from the Talegaon Dabhade Police Station, the Investigating Officer (I.O), Mr. Appasaheb Waghmale was informed about the incident. He visited the place where the incident had occurred. He came back to the police station alongwith the informant and the complaint was registered. Consequently, Crime bearing No. 502 of 2013 was registered against the accused. The registration of crime was followed by the inquest panchanama. Postmortem on the deceased was performed by Dr. Madhav Waghmare. The spot panchanama was conducted by the I.O. in the presence of panchas. The samples of blood were collected. The photographer took the photographs of the spot alongwith the articles found on the spot. The clothes of the deceased- Sarika and the accused were seized. The seized clothes, the weapon of offence and samples of blood were sent to the Chemical Analyzer for examination. A request was made to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording the statements of witnesses, under 164 (5) of the Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case. The sta