The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, specifically the fourth exception, in determining the nature of the accused's actions and the appropriate conviction.

P.V. Hardas, J.

1. The Appellant/original accused No.1 who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg, Oros, by judgment dated 17 December 2007, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2007, by this Appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence.

2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus:

P.W. 11 Police Constable Nandkumar Gosavi who on 1 April 2007 was attached to Malwan Police Station, recorded the report of P.W. 1 Chandrakala at Exhibit 26. On the basis of the said report, he registered an offence against the accused and forwarded the papers to Police Station, Achara for further investigation.

3. P.W. 12 P.S.I. Krishna Kalantre, who was attached to Police Station, Achara, had received the papers from P.W. 11 Police Constable Nandkumar Gosavi on 2 April 2007 at about 1.00 a.m. On the basis of the report of P.W.1 Chandrakala, he registered an offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.1 of 2007 against accused Nos.1 to 4. He thereafter proceeded to the scene of incident. On going to the scene of incident, which was pointed out by P.W. 1 Chandrakala, he drew the scene of incident Panchanama in the presence of panchas at Exhibit 32. From the scene of incident, he drew the sample of bloodstains which were sealed and seized under the said Panchanama. From the scene of incident he thereafter proceeded to the Rural Hospital at Malwan where the dead body of deceased Chandrashekhar was kept in the mortuary. In the presence of panchas, therefore he drew an inquest Panchanama of the deceased at Exhibit 29. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were arrested at village Achara under the arrest Panchanama and were referred to the Rural Hospital, Malwan for medical examination.

4. P.W. 10 Dr. Swapnil Pise had examined P.W. 5 Vishwas. P.W. 10 Dr. Pise had noticed that P.W. 5 Vishwas had sustained the following external injuries:

“1. The deep bruise was found on bilateral parietal bone of the skull.

2. Superficial abrasion over right side dorsal aspect of forearm 10 cm from the wrist, lower, 1/3rd of forearm.

3. The tenderness was found on the right and left side of lumber vertebra 20 cm away from the spine.

4. Tenderness was found over bilateral testicles.”

5. He has opined that injuries 1 and 3 might have been caused by hard and blunt object. The aforesaid injuries were simple in nature. The superficial abrasion could be caused by hard and rough surface. The medical certificate of P.W. 5 Vishwas is at Exhibit 49.

6. On 3 April 2007 the statement of witnesses were recorded and the clothes of P.W.1 Chandtrakala and clothes of P.W. 2 Namrata were seized under seizure memo at Exhibit 39. The clothes of the accused were seized under seizure memo at Exhibit 30. The clothes indicated that they had been stained with blood. The report of the Chemical Analyzer, however, is inconclusive as the blood group on the clothes could not be determined.

7. On 8 April 2007 P.W. 12 P.S.I. Kalantre forwarded the seized articles to the Chemical Analyzer at Pune under requisition at Exhibit 52. The sketch of the scene of incident was drawn and further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the accused was filed.

8. The postmortem on the dead body of deceased Chandrashekhar was performed by P.W.9 Dr. Rajkumar Bothikar. P.W.9 Dr. Bothikar noticed the following external injuries:

“1. Penetrating injury over right side of chest in the 2nd inter costal space, four finger above from right nipple (1 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm).

2. Imprint abrasion over right chest (2 cm long) and 2nd inter costal space, four finger above right nipple, close to injury No.1.”

9. He found that the said injuries were ante mortem injuries and on internal examination he noticed presence of blood in thorax. He also noti