JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. :---This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 21-4-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1993 whereby, the appellant herein was held to be guilty of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life on account of the murder committed by him of his sister-in-law by name Suchita on 7-6-1993 at about 9.30 p.m. at village Kongale, Taluka Dapoli, District Ratnagiri. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to one Pramila about 15 years prior to the date of incident and he had a sister-in-law by name Suchita who was brought up in his house from the age of 5/6 years. When she attained the age of puberty, the accused and his wife settled Suchita's marriage with one Subhash Salve a young man of village Kongale four months prior to the date of incident. Suchita went to reside with her husband in her matrimonial house. With the departure of Suchita, the accused started harassing his wife and his children as he was not feeling happy due to absence of deceased Suchita in his house and he started insisting upon his wife to bring Suchita back to his house. On realising that the deceased could not be brought back to his house, the accused tried to create ill-feelings about Suchita in her matrimonial house by informing her father-in-law that he had illicit relations with deceased Suchita. He also informed the father-in-law of Suchita that Suchita was as good as his wife and he had come to take her back to his house. This was followed by a meeting of villagers wherein the accused confirmed the fact of meeting with the father-in-law of Suchita and whatever that was told by him to the father-in-law of Suchita. The villagers therefore, scolded the accused and the accused prayed for pardon and promised not to repeat any such instance thenforth. However, the accused could not control himself and he continued to ill-treat his wife on account of inability to bring Suchita to his house. He even used some poison used for killing the rats and tried to get rid of his wife. However, on account of precaution taken by his wife, he could not succeed in that. However, the accused could not control himself and he continued to ill-treat his wife on account of inability to bring Suchita to his house. He even used some poison used for killing the rats and tried to get rid of his wife. However, on account of precaution taken by his wife, he could not succeed in that. Moreover, it appears that it was Suchita, who had alerted her sister regarding the preparation to administer the poison to his wife by the accused and this came to be known by the accused and he did not like the behaviour of Suchita in that respect. 3.On 4-6-1993 at about 7 a.m. Anita Salvi along with the deceased Suchita had left village Kongale and had gone to village Tadil to fetch fertilizers. After the purchase of fertilizer from a shop of one Arai they divided the same into two parts of 25 kgs. each and left for their village with the said bundles on their respective heads. They halted at one or two places to take rest and reached the village at about 9.20 a.m. walking down the way in between the houses of Ramchandra Vithal Salvi and Ramesh Ravji Salvi. Anita noticed that the accused coming from front side and proceeding towards her rear side from her left side. At that time the accused was holding a weapon in his hand known as scythe. At that time deceased Suchita was following the said lady by name Anita and was at a distance of 10 paces behind her. All of a sudden Anita heard shouts of Suchita and she turned back to see what was the matter. She saw that the accused was assaulting Suchita with scythe on her left side of the body, abdomen and below right ear. She also noticed the accused delivering scythe blows on the head and other parts of the body of Suchita. She also saw the deceased Suchita falling down on the ground in the pool of blood. Seeing the situation the said Anita got scared and dropped fertilizer bag on the spot itself and she ran away towards the house of Suchita and informed Chandrabhaga Ramchandra Salvi, the cousin mother-in-law of the deceased Suchita about the incident. She also reported the incident to Shantaram Salvi and thereafter Krishna Salvi, the Police Patil of village Kongale. Seeing the situation the said Anita got scared and dropped fertilizer bag on the spot itself and she ran away towards the house of Suchita and informed Chandrabhaga Ramchandra Salvi, the cousin mother-in-law of the deceased Suchita about the incident. She also reported the incident to Shantaram Salvi and thereafter Krishna Salvi, the Police Patil of village Kongale. On receipt of the said information the said Police Patil rushed to the spot and on inquiry with the deceased by the Police Patil, it was disclosed to him by deceased Suchita that the accused had assaulted her. The Police Patil immediately rushed to village Kongale from where he contacted Dapoli Police Station and informed about the incident. The Head Constable Manohar Shinde thereupon proceeded towards the scene of offence and after recording the complaint from Anita Salvi forwarded the same to the Police Station, Dapoli for registration of the offence. That followed further investigation in the matter, including the recording of panchanama of scene of offence, the inquest panchanama, the statement of witnesses, the post-mortem examination of the deceased and further medical examination of the blood of the deceased as well as of the accused and of the various articles seized during the course of investigation including scythe which was recovered at the instance of the accused. 4.On completion of the investigation, the accused herein was charged for the offence of murder of his sister-in-law Suchita and after recording the evidence, having found him guilty of the offence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo the punishment of R.I. for life. The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses including eye-witness Anita, the panchas, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Suchita and the Police Patil. 5.Shri S.M. Dange, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that the trial Court did not analyse the evidence on record correctly and that it wrongly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the offence of murder of Suchita. He further submitted that the trial Court erred in believing the testimony of the complainant Anita P.W. 1 and further submitted that the fact that Anita was carrying a load of 25 kgs. He further submitted that the trial Court erred in believing the testimony of the complainant Anita P.W. 1 and further submitted that the fact that Anita was carrying a load of 25 kgs. was sufficient to disbelieve the contention of Anita that she turned back at the relevant time and saw the accused assaulting the deceased Suchita. According to the learned Advocate it is impossible for any human being to turn back in a manner it is stated by the complainant Anita while she was carrying a load of 25 kgs. on her head. On this count alone her testimony should have been discarded by the trial Court. It was further submitted by the learned Advocate that the witness Parvati P.W. 3 also could not have been believed because as per her own statement, she was serving food to her husband and that food was being served in the kitchen of the house and that therefore, she had no occasion to see the incident at the relevant time. It was further submitted that the so called dying declaration by the deceased Suchita to the Police Patil did not find any corroboration from any witness. Considering the injuries suffered by the deceased Suchita it is unbelievable that the deceased could have been in a position to speak to the Police Patil to give the said declaration. 6.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence on record clearly establish that the complainant Anita immediately rushed to the house of Suchita and further informed the incident to the Police Patil P.W. 5 and immediately rushed to the spot. The evidence on record further disclose that there was an attempt made by the persons at the spot to serve the water to deceased Suchita and she had in fact, consumed some water. Further it has also come on record through the deposition of P.W. 4, the panch witness, who incidentally happened to be a local resident, had been to the spot of incident at the relevant time and day and he had seen the deceased alive till 10.15 a.m. This evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was in a position to speak to the Police Patil at the relevant time. Besides the person to whom the dying declaration has been given is not a interested witness and he was Police Patil from the village. Besides the person to whom the dying declaration has been given is not a interested witness and he was Police Patil from the village. Being so, there is no reason to doubt the testimony of P.W. 5 as regards the dying declaration of the deceased Suchita to him. It was further submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the weapon used by the accused for the assault on Suchita was recovered at the instance of the accused and the defence has not been able to shake the testimony of pancha in relation to the discovery of the weapons. The evidence on record further establishes that the blood group of the accused is "AB" whereas the blood group of the deceased as well as that of one found on the scythe and the clothes of the deceased was of "A" group. Added to this the incident of assault has been proved before the Court by the evidence of eye witnesses coupled with the medical evidence which clearly establishes the involvement of the accused in the matter of assault on and the death of Suchita. Being so, according to the learned A.P.P. the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and no case is made out for interference in the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 6-A.On hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record it is seen that the incident of assault on deceased Suchita has been clearly established through the testimony of Anita P.W. 1 and Parvati P.W. 3. In fact, the testimony of both the witnesses has remained unshaken in the cross-examination. P.W. 1 has clearly stated that she along with Suchita was proceeding towards the village with the fertilizers purchased by them in the neighbouring village. She has further deposed that she had actually seen the accused delivering scythe blows on the body of deceased Suchita. This fact is further corroborated by the witness Parvati P.W. 3 and by the dying declaration of the deceased Suchita to Police Patil Krishna Salvi P.W. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P. the witness Krishna Salvi is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve him when he stated before the Court that the deceased Suchita informed him that the accused had assaulted her. As rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P. the witness Krishna Salvi is an independent witness and there is no reason to disbelieve him when he stated before the Court that the deceased Suchita informed him that the accused had assaulted her. The evidence also disclose that till about 10.15 a.m. Suchita was conscious and was served with the water and had in fact consumed some of the water. There is no material brought on record to show that Suchita was not in a position to speak at the relevant time and in the absence of such evidence coupled with whatever evidence we have on record the testimony of P.W. 5 cannot be discarded wherein he had stated that deceased Suchita told him that the accused had assaulted her. His testimony is further corroborated by the other evidence on record in the form of the weapon scythe used for assault and the chemical analysis report in respect of the blood found on the said weapon. The evidence discloses that the scythe was recovered at the instance of the accused from the place which cannot be said to be easily accessible to the public. The weapon at the relevant time was discovered at the instance of accused and was found to have bloodstains on the same. On the examination of the same by the Chemical Analyser, the blood group of the bloodstains found on the weapon are proved to be of the same group of the blood as that of the deceased Suchita and different from that of the blood group of the accused. The evidence on record further establish that the deceased Suchita was assaulted by the accused in a manner which clearly disclose the intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased Suchita. Dr. Dnyaneshwar Aiwale-P.W. 2 who performed the post-mortem on the body of Suchita has given details narration about the injuries which were found on the body of Suchita and they are : (1)CLW Rt. Tempro occipital 2" x ½" FD. (2)Abrasion LT. side of forehead 2" (illegible). (3)Incised wound rt. wrist antly. ½" x ½" x FD. (4)Incised wound Rt. wrist antly ½" x ¼" below No. 3. (5)Incised wound Rt. thumb at MCP Lt. level ½" x ¼" x 4 (illegible) (6)Incised wound Rt. little finger palmer aspect ½" x ¼ x FD. (7)Incised wound Rr. (2)Abrasion LT. side of forehead 2" (illegible). (3)Incised wound rt. wrist antly. ½" x ½" x FD. (4)Incised wound Rt. wrist antly ½" x ¼" below No. 3. (5)Incised wound Rt. thumb at MCP Lt. level ½" x ¼" x 4 (illegible) (6)Incised wound Rt. little finger palmer aspect ½" x ¼ x FD. (7)Incised wound Rr. ring finger palmer aspect ½" x ¼" FD. (8)Clearent incised wound Lt. lower chest at level of 10th rib. 5" x 2" x Spleen deep. Splean out through and through. (9)Clean cut incised wound 1" below No. 8, 7" x 3" x kidney deep. Lt. kidney cut through and thigh. Rotroperiloneal hamaline about 1½ litre capacity. (10)Corts of intestline buddging out of the wound. One cod incised 1" x ¼" x (illegable) deep. (11)I/W pariets occiput 2" x ½" x F.D. 7.The witness has further stated that he noticed injuries mainly on the chest and abdomen which were incised wounds. He has further stated that the injuries at Sr. Nos. 3 to 10 and corresponding internal injuries were caused by sharp edged hard object and the probable cause of death was due to rupture, splea ruptured, left kidney retroporitenial haemorrhage and all injuries sustained. 8.The evidence on record disclose that the accused was unhappy due to the fact that the deceased Suchita had to leave his house and had gone to stay with her husband in her matrimonial house. The evidence on record discloses that he had illicit relations with the deceased Suchita. The evidence also disclose that he had failed in his attempt of poisoning his wife and to get rid of his wife with the help of poison and that too on account of alarm on the part of the deceased Suchita. 9.Considering all the evidence on record, it is seen that the trial Court has rightly arrived at a finding that the accused and accused alone had intentionally caused the death of the deceased Suchita with the help of scythe on 7-6-1993 at village Kongale and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. It is the case of the prosecution that the defence has not been able to shake the testimony of any of the witnesses in the instant case and the guilt of the accused has been established beyond doubt. 10.Considering the fact that the deceased Suchita was following the witness Anita hardly at a distance of 10 paces from her, it cannot be said that it was difficult for the witness Anita to see the incident of assault by the accused on Suchita inspite of the fact that she was carrying a load of 25 kgs. on her head. Besides the evidence also discloses that the accused was not satisfied with one blow on Suchita and he continued to give blows on the body of Suchita. This shows that there was sufficient time available at the disposal of Anita to turn and to witness the incident of assault on the deceased Suchita by the accused. Hence, the submission in respect of the testimony of Anita-P.W. 1 by the learned Advocate for the appellant is devoid of substance. As regards, Parvati P.W. 3 she has clearly deposed that she had come out of her house after serving the food to her husband. This shows that at the relevant time she was not inside the house but she was in front of her house. The submission of the learned Advocate in relation to the testimony of P.W. 3 is also without any substance. 11.Proper analysis of the entire evidence on record, therefore, clearly shows that the accused herein with the use of scythe assaulted Suchita on 7-6-1993 at about 9.30 a.m. at village Kongale with the intention to cause her death and therefore, committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the I.P.C. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court. 12.In the result, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. *****