Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 405 (BOM)

Bhivrao s/o. Kisan Kakad v. State of Maharashtra

2008-03-13

NARESH H.PATIL, P.R.BORKAR

body2008
Judgment : Oral Judgment: [Naresh H. Patil, J.] The appellant is charged for committing murder of Balasaheb Kisan Kakad and his wife Sangita Balasaheb Kakad on 02.07.2002 at about 3.30 p.m. in the farmhouse of deceased. The appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. Prakash Waghmare (PW-6) Police Patil of village Tilapur, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar has filed complaint with Police Station, Rahuri on 03.07.2002 bringing to the notice of police the incident in question. The Police Patil accused the appellant for commission of crime. 3. In short background facts of the prosecution case are that Sangita -daughter of Bhausaheb Nagare (PW-10) was married with deceased Balasaheb on 16.11.1997. They were blessed with a son who at the relevant time was three years old. Both the deceased and the appellant/accused were staying in their respective farmhouses and were adjacent neighbours. Their agricultural lands were situated in village Tilapur. The prosecution alleges that the relation between the deceased and the appellant were not cordial. Due to fear of the appellant at one point of time the deceased husband and wife had shifted their cows and domestic articles to Ghogargaon, Tal. Newasa and stayed there in the house of sister of deceased Balasaheb. The relations intervened and tried to convince both the brothers not to quarrel. The prosecution case is that deceased Balasaheb was residing in a hut constructed in block No. 78/2 and the appellant was staying in the neighbourhood of the deceased in land block No.258. Gat No. 260 of the said village belongs to star prosecution witness Gokul Laxman Kakad (PW-7). To the East side of farmhouse situated in block No.78/2, there is farmhouse of Raybhan family, which according to the prosecution is situated at a distance of 500 to 700 fts. Adjoining to the land of block No.258 and 78/2, admeasuring 2 acres each, there is land owned by Gokul Kakad (PW-7). At a distance of 500-700 fts. from the spot of incident, there are other huts and fields owned by other persons. The deceased and the appellant/accused used to ordinarily reside in their farmhouses. Tilapur village comes under command area of Mula irrigation canal. The agriculturists of this area used to take sugar-cane crops along with other crops. At a distance of 500-700 fts. from the spot of incident, there are other huts and fields owned by other persons. The deceased and the appellant/accused used to ordinarily reside in their farmhouses. Tilapur village comes under command area of Mula irrigation canal. The agriculturists of this area used to take sugar-cane crops along with other crops. From the evidence on record it seems that the agricultural lands were fertile in nature and had irrigation facility. 4. The prosecution alleges that the incident of assault took place on 02.07.2002. Land of Gokul Kakad (PW-7) is situated at a distance of 2000 fts. From the field of deceased and accused. Gokul Kakad (PW-7) was present in the farmhouse at the time of incident. It is alleged that he heard sound of quarrel between the appellant and deceased Balasaheb. It was 5.30 p.m. After some time the sound of quarrelling stopped. It is alleged that at about 6.00 to 06.15 p.m. the appellant was passing by field-house of PW-7. Gokul Kakad (PW-7) who found the appellant behaving in strange and irrational manner. The appellant was making unusual gesture. Gokul Kakad (PW-7) asked the reason of such behaviour, on which the appellant informed him that deceased Balasaheb assaulted his wife Sangita. PW-7 suspected behaviour of the appellant, so he went to the house of Sarpanch of the village namely Bhanudas Savitra Aghav and came to the spot with him. PW-7 even noticed bloodstains lying outside the hut. After entering into the hut PW-7 saw that Balasaheb was lying on the ground having injury on his neck. He was dead. He even saw Sangita who had suffered axe injury and was unconscious. Thereafter, Bhanu Aghav stayed in his field and PW-7 went to inform Police Patil. He narrated the incident to the Police Patil and thereafter came back to his field house. He again proceeded to the spot along with Police. After Police reached the spot, they made arrangement to send Sangita to hospital for medical treatment. Police prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body of Balasaheb. Then the dead body was sent to Rahuri for post mortem. The dead body was brought to village for last rituals on next day. Sangita was though unconscious, survived for a month. Unfortunately, during this period she could not utter anything, according to the prosecution. Police prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body of Balasaheb. Then the dead body was sent to Rahuri for post mortem. The dead body was brought to village for last rituals on next day. Sangita was though unconscious, survived for a month. Unfortunately, during this period she could not utter anything, according to the prosecution. Ultimately, though she was provided with medical treatment in Government/private hospital, she could not regain consciousness and ultimately succumbed to the injuries and died. 5. The Investigation Officer drew spot panchanama on 03.07.2002 (Exh.43). The I.O. recovered bloodstained banian at the behest of the appellant under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 04.07.2002. Statement was recorded to that effect and memorandum panchanama was drawn accordingly and articles were seized from the field. The Investigation Officer had seized axe which was lying on the spot. The cloths of the deceased seized under panchanama and seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser for report. The Chemical Analyser’s report at Exh.19 shows that the article like axe was stained with blood group of "B". Blood group of deceased could not be determined. The blood-group of the stains on the clothes of the accused was determined as "B", whereas blood-group of accused could not be determined as the results were inconclusive. 6. As regards the injury suffered by deceased, Dr. Pravin Munot (PW-3) performed post-mortem of the dead body of Sangita and Dr. Prakash Bhosale (PW-12) performed post-mortem of the dead body of Balasaheb. The Medical Officer (PW-12) noticed following injuries on the person of Balasaheb. .(1) Incised wound over neck left side to middle region, measuring about 3 1/2 inches x 3 inches x 2 inches deep cervical spine cord injured spine C3 fractured, edges are sharp. .(2) Incised wound over right shoulder, 4 inches x 1 inch x 1/2 inch, edges are sharp. .(3) CLW right ear, measuring 1 cm x 1/2 cm., edges are sharp. .(4) Abrasion middle to the back, below scapular and thoracic region. (5) Laceration to left hand palmer region. Dr. Pravin Munot (PW-3) while performing post-mortem of dead body of Sangita, noticed following injuries. .(1) Sutured wound on scalp from forehead to occipital region just on left side of mid-line, length 24 cms. .(2) Sutured wound on left zygomatic region about 6 cms. .(3) Sutured wound on right infraclavicular region. .(4) Sutured wound on right shoulder. Dr. Pravin Munot (PW-3) while performing post-mortem of dead body of Sangita, noticed following injuries. .(1) Sutured wound on scalp from forehead to occipital region just on left side of mid-line, length 24 cms. .(2) Sutured wound on left zygomatic region about 6 cms. .(3) Sutured wound on right infraclavicular region. .(4) Sutured wound on right shoulder. .(5) Hole middle line of neck anterior side, tracheotomy wound. .(6) Two wounds on shoulder near each other on medial aspect of right arm, 3 cms. each. .(7) Deep contusion left fore arm 3 cms. .(8) Sutured wound on right ankle with cannula in it. Venesection wound. .(9) Fracture of left arm. The Doctor further noticed the following injuries. .(1) Onopening sutured wound no.1 mentioned in column No.17 of the P.M. notes about 100 millilitre of purulent fluid seen below the scalp. .(2) Absent bone piece of left frontal and left parietal region just below injury No.1 size of bony defect is 11 cms x 5 cms with brain with its covering herniating out of it. .(3) After removal of brain covering, left hemisphere of brain was split down anterior posteriorly for half of its length with purulent fluid in it. Both the Medical Officers have stated that the injuries suffered by deceased Balasaheb and deceased Sangita were antemortem. According to the Medical Officer probable cause of death of deceased Balasaheb was shock due to injury to spinal cord along with severe haemorrhage and probable cause of death of deceased Sangita was cardiorespiratory failure due to injury to brain with super added infection. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution are not sufficient to convict the appellant for offence of murder of husband and wife i.e. Balasaheb and Sangita. The appellant happens to be brother of deceased Balasaheb and their neighbour. Inference cannot be drawn that it must be the appellant who assaulted the deceased with dangerous weapon. There is absolutely no motive to commit crime as already land was partitioned between the brothers. The appellant was not to be benefited in view of the fact that the deceased had a son, though minor one. Inference cannot be drawn that it must be the appellant who assaulted the deceased with dangerous weapon. There is absolutely no motive to commit crime as already land was partitioned between the brothers. The appellant was not to be benefited in view of the fact that the deceased had a son, though minor one. According to the Counsel, there is no history of any litigation going on between the brothers inter se neither there were strained relations between them which could be said to be one of the causes for committing the murder. Whatever evidence the prosecution has brought on record may suggest that the appellant was present near the spot of incident, which according to the counsel is natural one as his agricultural land is adjacent to the land of deceased and their farmhouses are located just adjacent to each other. The recovery of axe and banian of the appellant is not relevant to connect the appellant with crime. Blood group of the banian was not determined, neither blood group of the appellant could be determined in the Chemical Analyser’s report. In the submissions of the Counsel the vital witnesses of the prosecution case are PW-6 and PW-7. The evidence of PW-6 is relevant to the effect that he had only seen the appellant while proceeding from front side of his house and on that basis the prosecution developed case that it was the appellant who was last seen with the deceased and looking to the strange behaviour of the appellant he must have committed the murder. No blood was found on the person of the appellant neither on the clothes except banian. The prosecution did not examine any independent witness though on reasonable distance from the spot of incident other neighbours had their houses/huts and were engaged in doing agricultural operations. Learned Counsel placed reliance on reported judgments in Anil Motibaba Barokar V/s. State of Maharashtra – (1996 CRI.L.J.494), Rajkumar V/s. State of M.P. – ( AIR 2004 SC 4408 ), State of Maharashtra V/s. Bittu @ Gurumitsingh s/o. Sardar Singh Makan & Ors.- (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1058), Babusaheb Maruti Kalane & ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra – (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1130) and Kailas Tukaram Patil and anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra – (1006 ALL MR (Cri) 86). 8. V/s. State of Maharashtra – (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1130) and Kailas Tukaram Patil and anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra – (1006 ALL MR (Cri) 86). 8. Considering the evidence of prosecution, we do not find any defect to observe that the appellant was present at the crucial time when the incident of assault took place. He was immediate neighbour of the farmhouse of the deceased. There is some evidence on record to suggest that partition of immovable property was effected between the brothers. It is necessary to ascertain the behaviour and temperament of the appellant in connection with his relations with the deceased. Bhausaheb Nagare (PW-10) is father of deceased Sangita who deposed before the Court that prior to eight months of the incident the electric motor installed on the Well was stopped and on that count the appellant assaulted deceased Balasaheb. The couple was so much frightened that they had shifted .their cows and their domestic articles to Ghogargaon, Tal. Newasa, where sister of Balasaheb was residing. The couple stayed there for eight months. After intervention of the relatives the deceased couple again went back to their farmhouse to reside. The version of this witness before the Court is relevant to the fact to demonstrate the nature of the appellant and his day-to-day relationship with the deceased, as this case mainly rests on the circumstantial evidence it is necessary for us to look into the circumstances which are brought on record by the prosecution and established. 9. In the evidence of Gokul Kakad (PW-7), who is relative of appellant, it is disclosed that on the day of incident he heard sound of quarrel between the deceased and the appellant while he was in the field-house. The time was about 5=30 p.m. After so me time the sound of quarrel stopped. According to the witness at about 6=00 to 6=15 p.m. the appellant was passing through his field-house. The witness noticed strange and unusual behaviour of the appellant. The witness asked the appellant why he was behaving in this fashion. The appellant replied that deceased Balasaheb had assaulted Sangita and thereafter the accused/appellant went to the field-house of Sakhahari. The witness suspected about the conduct in the reply given. Therefore, he went to the house of Sarpanch of the village Bhanudas and reached the spot with him. The witness saw spot of incident. The appellant replied that deceased Balasaheb had assaulted Sangita and thereafter the accused/appellant went to the field-house of Sakhahari. The witness suspected about the conduct in the reply given. Therefore, he went to the house of Sarpanch of the village Bhanudas and reached the spot with him. The witness saw spot of incident. The deceased was lying there with the injuries on the person and thereafter he went to inform Police Patil. The series of incidents have not taken much time to happen which are of much significant in this case. The appellant was the person who could be last seen in the acquaintance of the deceased. His presence was natural. He was neighbour of the deceased. Their agricultural lands were close by and therefore it certainly raised suspicion in the mind of PW-7. In the cross-examination of this witness PW-7 certain dimensions and distances of other agricultural properties are mentioned, but from the description of the location given by this witness, we could notice that there was no such other farmhouse at a very close by distance than the farmhouse of the appellant. It was suggested that both the brothers were residing happily and there was no quarrel between them. Certain omissions are brought on record in the evidence of PW-7, but we do not find them affecting the prosecution case materially. 10. The Police reached the spot at about 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. The witness admitted before the Court that neither he nor other family member had gone to the spot of incident. Learned Counsel for the defence challenged the evidence of this witness on the ground of his conduct and it is submission of the Counsel that the witness must have reached the spot after hearing from the appellant that Balasaheb had assaulted his wife. It was natural that a person would think twice before reaching the spot where a serious crime was committed. He would prefer to inform some authority or some relatives or persons first than to individually reach the spot of incident. We do not find any objectionable or strange behaviour on the part of PW-7 in not reaching the spot of incident first before informing the incident to Sarpanch and thereafter to Police Patil. 11. The theory of defence as suggested to the witness is that some dacoits must have committed .the offence. We do not find any objectionable or strange behaviour on the part of PW-7 in not reaching the spot of incident first before informing the incident to Sarpanch and thereafter to Police Patil. 11. The theory of defence as suggested to the witness is that some dacoits must have committed .the offence. By bringing to the notice of the witness the quality of fertility of the agricultural land and crops taken by the villagers of that area, the defence probably wanted to suggest that the assault must be the act of dacoits. This theory of the defence has no basis, as we do not find anything stolen from the house of the deceased, neither in the panchanama nor from the evidence of any witness. There is no such evidence to draw inference that with some purposes the dacoits must have assaulted the deceased. 12. Prakash Waghmare (PW-6) is Police Patil. In his deposition, stated before the Court that prior to two months of the incident, there was quarrel between Balasaheb and the appellant. At that time Balasaheb had told him that his brother was abusing and unnecessarily giving trouble to him. 13. After two days of the information the appellant met him in the village with whom the Police Patil enquired about the quarrel and according to this witness the appellant informed the Police Patil that some disputes used to be there amongst the brothers. The information of the incident was given to this witness by Gokul (PW-7). When PW-6 and PW-7 saw the deceased, they noticed that Sangita was unconscious but Balasaheb had died. At the distance of 5 ft. from them, one axe was lying which had bloodstains. Even PW-6 was of the view that appellant committed murder of Balasaheb. Therefore, he telephoned Rahuri Police Station and thereafter investigation started. In the cross-examination of this witness, the defence has raised issue about location of the spot and distance from the river. It was suggested to the witness that it was rainy season, and there were no street lights surrounding the spot of incident. The witness admitted that except PW-7 nobody was present on the spot. We have noticed that a suggestion was given to this witness that PW-7 was interested to grab property of appellant, therefore, a false case was set up with the help of other prosecution witness by PW-7. The witness admitted that except PW-7 nobody was present on the spot. We have noticed that a suggestion was given to this witness that PW-7 was interested to grab property of appellant, therefore, a false case was set up with the help of other prosecution witness by PW-7. We do not notice any material for such allegation made against PW-7 by the defence. Merely, by death of the deceased, the property would not be transferred to PW-7. The deceased had a minor son who was surviving. The deceased has other brothers to take care of the property. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any transaction of sale and purchase of the subject property between the deceased and PW-7. By involving the appellant, PW-7 was not going to be benefited as wife of deceased Balasaheb was surviving on the date of incident. Therefore, the theory propounded by the defence is not convincing and is without any foundation. There is no material to support the case of the defence. In the cross-examination of the Police Patil, it has been brought on record that he did not state to the Police that Gokul told him that when accused/appellant was going by the side of his house, he informed that Balasaheb committed murder of his wife Sangita and for the first time he was stating this before the Court. The Police Patil further stated before the Court that in the complaint he did not state that at a distance of 5 fts from the body of Balasaheb and Sangita, an axe was lying. These omissions and elaborations in the evidence of PW-6 do not adversely affect the prosecution case, as the witness had supported the prosecution case on vital aspects of the case. The witnesses like PW-6 and PW-7 are not interested in the prosecution or not prejudiced against appellant nor they are otherwise interested in deposing .against the appellant. 14. In the evidence of Bhausaheb (PW-10) the father-in-law of Balasaheb, he stated that when he saw his daughter, she was unconscious. There were injuries on her person. Doctor advised to take Sangita to good hospital for operation of brain. Accordingly, she was brought to Pravara Hospital, Loni. In Pravara Hospital, it was informed that Sangita was carrying for 2 1/2 months pregnancy and there was possibility of poisoning and therefore her pregnancy was terminated. There were injuries on her person. Doctor advised to take Sangita to good hospital for operation of brain. Accordingly, she was brought to Pravara Hospital, Loni. In Pravara Hospital, it was informed that Sangita was carrying for 2 1/2 months pregnancy and there was possibility of poisoning and therefore her pregnancy was terminated. Sangita survived for a month but she did not speak as she was unconscious. She was even treated by Neuro Surgeon and thereafter she was shifted to Mhaske Hospital. As regards, injuries suffered by Sangita and her surviving for a month period, the defence Counsel submitted that the death of Sangita is not direct result of the assault. We do not accept this submission of the Counsel. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by Sangita, we find that they were serious in nature and though all the possible attempts were made to save life of Sangita, she could not regain consciousness as there was serious damage to her brain, which was direct result of the assault made on Sangita. 15. Dr. Pravin Munot (PW-3), who performed post-mortem of dead body of Sangita deposed before the Court that there were signs of inserting injections and removal of bone of skull. Dr. Bharat Naik (PW-8) deposed before the Court that Sangita was admitted to their hospital for 30 days and since the time of admission till her death, there was no recovery. According to the Medical Officer, Sangita died due to brain injury, which was caused by sharp instrument. Dr. Vandana Kapase (PW-11) who was serving as Medical Officer in Pravara Rural Hospital, was examined by the prosecution. She deposed that on 03.07.2002 Sangita was brought to the hospital at 12=30 p.m. She also stated that Sangita did not speak anything since the time of admission till her discharge. 16. We have seen the communication made by Pravara Rural Hospital, Loni signed by Dr. Sangita (PW-11) addressed to the Police Inspector, Loni, which reads as under:- ."This is to inform you that a patient named Sangita Balasaheb Kakad, age 22 yrs female (R/o) Tilapur Tal.Rahuri has been admitted here/brought to O.P.D. on 3/7/02 at 12.30 p.m. with the history of Alleged h/o assault by known person on 2/7/02 at around 6.00 p.m. at Tilapur, Tal. Rahuri.” 17. Learned APP Mrs. Reddy submitted that the prosecution has collected good evidence against the appellant for securing conviction. Rahuri.” 17. Learned APP Mrs. Reddy submitted that the prosecution has collected good evidence against the appellant for securing conviction. The appellant was immediate neighbour of the deceased. He was present near the spot on the day of incident. He had early interaction with Gokul (PW-7) and from the behaviour of the appellant PW-7 rightly suspected and informed the Sarpanch. There is absolutely nothing abnormal in the conduct of PW-7 in informing Sarpanch first. In the submissions of learned APP, though minor variation in the admissions are pointed out in the version of PW-6 and PW-7 regarding who reached the spot of incident first and who informed the Police about the incident, but the same shall not adversely affect the prosecution case, as what is material according .to the Counsel is whether presence of the appellant near the spot was noticed by the prosecution witness. Presence of PW-7 was natural as he was residing near farmhouse. According to learned APP the brothers had strained relationship which is disclosed by Police Patil, father-in-law of deceased Balasaheb and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the same. The appellant was a person who must be present on the spot when the incident took place. Considering the distances of other farmhouses and agricultural lands, it is not possible for any other neighbour to commit offence for no reason. The theory of defence that some dacoits must have committed offence is imaginary. As regards intention to commit crime, learned APP submitted that both the deceased suffered serious injuries on the vital parts. Though Sangita survived for a period of one month, but could not utter single word. She suffered serious injuries due to the assault made on her. The assault was murderous and intention was very clear. According to learned APP, the appellant must be a person of quarrelsome nature. Learned APP has placed reliance on reported judgment in State of Rajasthan V/s. Dhool Singh - 2004 AIR SCW 24. 18. We find sufficient force in the submissions of learned APP. Considering the incident, relationship between the parties, presence of the appellant and explanation given by the appellant, we have no doubt in the mind that it must be the appellant who must be the culprit. The appellant had made statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. We have perused the same. Considering the incident, relationship between the parties, presence of the appellant and explanation given by the appellant, we have no doubt in the mind that it must be the appellant who must be the culprit. The appellant had made statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. We have perused the same. He stated that his son Pravin told his wife Shaila that dacoits have killed Balu Nana and injured Sangita and ran away. He heard shouts of his son and wife. Therefore, he started going towards his field-house. At that time children and wife informed him that such a incident had happened and after hearing the news he lost his consciousness. His wife sprinkled water and gave him tea. Thereafter, he regained consciousness. He was not in a position to understand anything. According to him, after police came there, he tried to explain Police, but they did not listen and took him in their jeep along with dead body. He alleges that Gokul (PW-7) and Police Patil (PW-6) under conspiracy have filed a false case by involving him in this case. The Trial Court asked question No.119 as to whether the appellants wants to examine any witness to which he replied as "No.". In reply to question Nos. 111 and 112, the appellant relied as under:- "Q-111: Why p.w. No.7 Gokul Laxman Kakad is deposing against you? Ans: He wants to grab my land and out of brotherhood dispute he is deposing against me. Q-112: Why p.w. No.8 Dr. Shri Bharat Naik is deposing against you? Ans: I do not know why he deposed against me." 19. Inthe facts of the case the immediate family members of the appellant like wife and children could have been best witnesses to be examined, but the appellant chose not to examine them for the reason known to him. We find that the substantive evidence of prosecution is corroborated. As regards seizure of axe, the Counsel for the defence submitted that such recovery which is made from public place is not to be relied upon. We do not find substance in the contentions raised by the Counsel. The axe had bloodstains of "B" group. We find that the substantive evidence of prosecution is corroborated. As regards seizure of axe, the Counsel for the defence submitted that such recovery which is made from public place is not to be relied upon. We do not find substance in the contentions raised by the Counsel. The axe had bloodstains of "B" group. The group of bloodstains on the clothes of the deceased was of "B" group and the group of blood on banian which was recovered at the instance of appellant is also of "B" group, which clearly establishes that these recovery and seizure of the articles are incriminating circumstances which go against the appellant and his innocence. It is true that in such matters, it is not sufficient for the prosecution to establish that the appellant may have committed murder, but it should be established that the appellant must have committed murder. There is a long gap between these two situations. But at the same time if prosecution established some strong circumstances which are adverse to the appellant and they are established, the burden shifts on the appellant for coming out with plausible explanation and that burden has to be discharged. We do not find that the appellant has given proper explanation and discharged burden to the extent which is required from him. Keeping in mind the principle of appreciation of evidence, we have considered minutely the prosecution evidence brought on record. 20. In the case of Anil Motibaba Barokar V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1996 CRI.L.J.494), in the facts of the case the learned Single Judge of this Court [CORAM: R.M. LODHA,J.] observed that indisputably there is no direct evidence in the case and the conviction of the accused/appellant is based on three circumstances. It was observed that guilt of the accused can be proved by circumstantial evidence but then the circumstantial evidence should complete the chain. Guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis should be possible from the circumstances referred. In the case of Rajkumar V/s. State of M.P. ( AIR 2004 SC 4408 ), in the facts of the case the Apex Court observed that the "last seen" evidence of PW-8, even if believed, cannot be pressed into service by the prosecution on account of the long time gap. In the case of Rajkumar V/s. State of M.P. ( AIR 2004 SC 4408 ), in the facts of the case the Apex Court observed that the "last seen" evidence of PW-8, even if believed, cannot be pressed into service by the prosecution on account of the long time gap. Barring evidence of PW-8 who claimed to have seen the accused at 9.00 a.m. at his house, there is no other evidence to establish the presence of the accused in the house proximate to the time of occurrence. Therefore, the vital link in this behalf is missing in the case. In the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Bittu @ Gurumitsingh s/o. Sardar Singh Makan & Ors. (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1058), the Division Bench was dealing with appeal filed by the State against judgment and order of acquittal. While dealing with facts of the case, it was observed that principles pertaining to interference with the order of acquittal are settled. It is a cardinal rule of law in criminal jurisprudence that where two views on appreciation of evidence are possible, one favourable to the accused is liable to be accepted. This principle applies with more vigor when appeal against acquittal is under consideration. In the case of Bhausaheb Maruti Kalane & ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1130), from the facts of the case, it was observed that the fact that deceased was last seen in the company of accused is very relevant. This circumstance taken together with other independently proved circumstances form complete chain shall be sufficient for proving murder. This circumstance of last seen in itself, alone, could not be made sole ground for conviction In the case of State of Rajasthan V/s. Dhool Singh, (2004 AIR SCW 24), the Apex Court observed that the number of injuries is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention. It is the nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. 21. Before parting with the case, we would like to mention some disturbing features in the proceedings of this Sessions Case noticed by us. 21. Before parting with the case, we would like to mention some disturbing features in the proceedings of this Sessions Case noticed by us. At Exh.4 of the original record and proceedings, we find an application dated 19.10.2002 filed by learned Advocate appearing for the appellant praying for permission in favour of the appellant to execute special power of attorney in favour of one Sanjay Jagannath Javeri, resident of Ahmednagar for sale of 3 acres land out of 5 acres owned by the appellant. It was further prayed for directing the jail authorities to permit execution of special power of attorney. Learned Trial Court passed order on 19.10.2002 for keeping the application for verification of the accused on 02.11.2002, on which date the Trial Court directed the appellant to file 7/12 extract on record so as to show that the land was recorded in the name of the appellant. On 30.11.2002 the Trial Court endorsed that 7/12 extracts are not filed or received, hence matter be kept on next date. On 27.12.2002, learned Joint District Judge passed order below Exh.4, which reads as under:- ."Heard counsel for the accused. The accused has filed 7x12 extract on record. The accused Bhivrao Kisan Kakad is present before the Court today. On verification he has informed the Court that he is not knowing Sanjay Jagannath Javeri and is not intending to give him power of attorney to sell his land but he himself is intending to sell his land. As the accused is not knowing Sanjay Javeri and he is not intending to give power of attorney to said Sanjay, the Court cannot grant permission to execute the power of attorney by the accused and it is also not required to inform the Superintendent of Sub-Jail accordingly. In view of this, application stands rejected. Order accordingly." 22. We also noticed application Exh.15 filed by the appellant under his signature seeking permission from Court for issuing directions to the Manager, ADCC Bank, Manjari Branch, Tal. Rahuri for disbursement of amount of Rs.10,000/-to his advocate from account No.3487 by clearing the cheque issued by the appellant. Accordingly the Court passed order on 07.03.2003 on the same directing the Jailor to allow the appellant to sign withdrawal slip of ADCC Bank, Manjari if the accused is voluntarily willing to sign on it. Rahuri for disbursement of amount of Rs.10,000/-to his advocate from account No.3487 by clearing the cheque issued by the appellant. Accordingly the Court passed order on 07.03.2003 on the same directing the Jailor to allow the appellant to sign withdrawal slip of ADCC Bank, Manjari if the accused is voluntarily willing to sign on it. On the said application the Court passed following order:- ."Heard again Shri Gawali and accused in person. The accused told that no cheque book is issued to him by the bank. Considering his difficulty the Jailor is directed to allow the accused to sign the withdrawal slip of A.D.C.C. Bank, Manjari, if the accused is voluntarily willing to sign on it." 23. We find that the copy of application Exh.4 and order passed on Exh.4 dated 27.12.2002 is required to be forwarded to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. The Registrar (Judicial) shall accordingly take steps to forward copy of the judgment, copy of Exh.4 and order passed thereon by the Trial Court for the purposes of information to be provided to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. 24. For the reasons stated above, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. 25. The High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad shall disburse professional fees as per rules to the Counsel appearing for the appellant.