Judgment :- A.P. BHANGALE, J. 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 31/12/2003 passed in the Sessions Case No. 60 of 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, whereby the Appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, present appeal is filed by the appellant through jail. 2. Brief facts which led to the prosecution of the Appellant are: The complaint was lodged by Bhagwan Jagu Kokare (PW4) informing Phaltan Police Station about the incident of murder of Dnyandev Jagu Kokare, resident of village Wadani, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara. According to the first informant, the appellant Balu Madne had entertained grudge against Dnyandeo on account of the fact that about ten years prior to the incident, the appellant had tried to snatch Mangalsutra (marriage string) from the neck of Dnyandev's wife. During that incident Dnyandev had assaulted the appellant Balu Madane and latter Dnyandeo was prosecuted pursuant to that incident. About eight months prior to the incident also when Dnyandev Kokare was returning to his house, the appellant had raised quarrel with him and had assaulted Dnyandeo on 10.2.2003 while Dnyandeo wanted to pay electricity bill and went to Mauje Widani, Taluka Phaltan. He had not returned to the house. On 11.2.2003 first informant was informed on telephone, pursuant to telephonic message received by neighbourer Nandkumar Nerkar from one Dr Balasaheb Shende, that body of Dnyandev is lying on the spot near Veterinary Hospital. First informant proceeded to the spot and saw dead body of Dnyandev with multiple injuries on his body, as also blood stained stone lying near the dead body. During the enquiry by the first informant, he came to know from Vishwas that Balu Madne (appellant) raised quarrel with Dnyandev on account of refusal by Dnyandeo to give liquor and money for consuming the liquor and appellant had assaulted Dnyandeo by means of a big stone causing him multiple injuries and murdered him. Thus, the first informant reported the incident to Phaltan Police Station on 11.2.2003 which gave rise to the first information report in respect of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. 3. The investigation followed. Thus, the first informant reported the incident to Phaltan Police Station on 11.2.2003 which gave rise to the first information report in respect of offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. 3. The investigation followed. A.P.I.Shri Dipak Deshmukh who recorded complaint (Exh.22) and registered Crime No.35/2003 under section 302 of I.P.C. at Phaltan Police Station on 12.10.2002 proceeded to the spot of incident where Dnyandev was lying dead and drew inquest panchnama regarding the condition of the dead body of Dnyandeo (Exh.20) then he sent dead body of Dnyandeo Kokare for postmortem examination. He also drew panchnama in respect of the spot of the incident (Exh.18) and irregular shaped stone (weighing about 10 kilograms), one bicycle and one lemon fruit lying on the spot of the incident, were seized and sealed with paper slip bearing signatures of panchas. The weapon of offence i.e. stone (Article No.6) was identified by PW 13 Dipak Deshmukh as the same which was seized on the spot as also the bicycle (Article No.7). He had collected blood mixed sample of earth and ordinary sample of earth. (Article Nos. 8, 9 and 10) then proceeded to record statement of witnesses. In the course of investigation, the articles such as clothes (Article Nos. 1 to 5) were recovered from the dead body under panchnama (Exh.29). Post mortem examination was done by Dr Waghmare (PW 12) as per the postmortem notes (Exh.34). The appellant Balu was arrested on 11.2.2003 at 11:05 p.m. under panchnama (Exh.16). He was referred for medical examination. His clothes (Shirt and Pyjama), which were found stained with blood, were seized and sealed in presence of panchas under panchnama (Exh.31). The Investigating Officer also sought opinion regarding possibility of causing injuries by means of stone seized during the course of investigation from the spot of incident, and opinion in respect thereof was obtained from the doctor (Exh.37). Seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser/Forensic Science Laboratory on 20.2.2003 duly acknowledged by Chemical Analyser's office. Reports from Chemical Analyser's office were received (Exh.49). 4. Upon completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before Judicial Magistrate, Phaltan who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Satara on 18.6.2003. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara framed charge against the appellant on 19.8.2003 at Exh.5 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. His plea as such was recorded (Exh.6). 6. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before Judicial Magistrate, Phaltan who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Satara on 18.6.2003. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara framed charge against the appellant on 19.8.2003 at Exh.5 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. His plea as such was recorded (Exh.6). 6. The prosecution sought to rely upon the evidence of thirteen witnesses in order to establish the guilt against the appellant and closed its evidence. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. His defence appears of total denial. He claimed to be innocent. 7. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondent-State. 8. The points which arise for determination: 9. We have scrutinized the evidence on record. The prosecution has produced evidence of homicidal death. Dr Waghmare (PW 12) was examined in order to prove that the deceased Dnyandev met with homicidal death. According to Dr Sampat Waghmare he had examined dead body of Dnyandeo Jagganath Pokhare and found following external and internal injuries. As to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction, and sentence is bad in law, and not sustainable in law? We give our answer in the negative. EXTERNAL INJURIES: 1. Contused lacerated wound over left cubital fossa, lateral side, 3 cm x 1 cm x ½ cm, blood clot present. 2. Abrasion on left cubital fossa, medical to injury No.1, 7 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm blackish in colour. 3. Contused lacerated wound over left parietal region, 5 cm lateral to mid line and 7 cm above left ear, 3 cm x ½ cm x scalp deep. 4. Contused lacerated wound over inter parietal region in mid line, 15 cm breach of nose, 1.5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm. 5. Abrasion on right side of face at carotid region, anterior to right ear, 2.5 cm x .5 cm, traversely placed, blackish in colour. 6. Abrasion on right side of neck, below mastoid process 1 cm x 0.5 cm blackish in colour. 7. Abrasion on right shoulder joint anteriorly, 4 cm x 1 cm, blackish scab present. 8. Abrasion on right supra clavicular region – middle 1/3rd of clavicle.2 cm x 1.5 cm black scab present. 9. 6. Abrasion on right side of neck, below mastoid process 1 cm x 0.5 cm blackish in colour. 7. Abrasion on right shoulder joint anteriorly, 4 cm x 1 cm, blackish scab present. 8. Abrasion on right supra clavicular region – middle 1/3rd of clavicle.2 cm x 1.5 cm black scab present. 9. Abrasion on chest in middle line traversely placed 4 cm x 1.4 cm black scab present. 10. Abrasion on left lower chest anteriorly 1 cm x 1 cm. There was a fracture of parietal bone. INTERNAL INJURIES: (i) Injuries under the scalp (a) Haematoma present effusion of blood on left parietal region. (ii) scull: fracture of left parietal bone below external injury No.3. 5 cm in length, lenior /obliquely placed running downwards and posteriorly. b) Fracture to skull left petrous bone near optic emphysema – c cm anterior posteriorly placed, 2 cm lateral to mid line. (iii) Brain: Brain covering tear at left parietal region, subdural haemotoma present 50 cc, brain matter congested. 10. Dr Waghmare (PW 12) expressed his opinion that all the above injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He gave opinion that the cause of death of Dnyandeo was “shock due to head injury”. He had performed postmortem examination and noted the injuries, etc in post mortem notes (Exh.35). He also expressed opinion that external injury Nos.3 and 4, mentioned above, were grievous in nature and can be caused if a person is hit by stone like article No.6 on his head and were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of the nature. Thus, according to Dr Waghmare, death of Dnyandeo could have been caused after hitting him with the stone article No.6 on his head and consequently when stone slips and hit on the other part of the body, the injuries as above were possible. Dr Waghmare (PW 12) has also mentioned description of the said clothes in para 7 of the postmortem report and handed over those clothes to the constable who had brought the dead body for the postmortem examination. He identified those clothes as Article Nos.2 to 5 before the court and stated that he had noted that there was blood stains on shirt (Article No. 3) and blood stains on banian. He identified those clothes as Article Nos.2 to 5 before the court and stated that he had noted that there was blood stains on shirt (Article No. 3) and blood stains on banian. He had also expressed his opinion that murder of Dnyandev could have been caused by hitting him with the stone article No.6. Although, Dr Waghmare (PW 12) was cross-examined, at length, nothing damaging to his testimony could be elicited during the course of his cross-examination. If the evidence of Dr Waghmare (PW 12) is read along with the evidence of spot panchnama (Exh.18), the inquest panchnama (Exh.22) injury certificate (Exh.35) and postmortem notes (Exh.36), and bearing in mind, the evidence of eye witnesses led on the record, it must be concluded that the prosecution has succeeded to prove that deceased Dnyandeo met with homicidal death. 11. Next question, as to who caused death of Dnyandeo. In order to establish the offence against the appellant, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of first informant (Bhagwan PW4) who lodged his complaint, then PW 5 Sonabai. According to PW 5 Sonabai, deceased Dnyandeo was her husband and ten years prior to the incident the appellant accused Balu had tried to snatch her Mangalsutra from around her neck which she had held by her hand. Dnyandeo had beaten appellant Balu Madne two days after the incident of attempt of snatching the Mangalsutra. Therefore, the accused Balu had grudge against her husband. About eight years prior to the incident also while her husband was returning home, appellant Balu had raised quarrel with him about which her husband had informed her. On the day earlier to the day when dead body of her husband was found seen lying, she and her husband took meal in the morning and she had gone to the field for work, while her husband Dnyandev told her to go and cut the vegetables in the field. On that day, he wanted to pay electricity charges, therefore, he left on bicycle and was expected to join her in field. On that day witness Sonabai was busy in the field till 5.00 p.m. and waited for her husband. But he did not come to the field. Therefore, she went to Phaltan to sell vegetables. While she returned in the evening, later at about 7:00 p.m. from Phaltan, she came to know that her husband did not return to the house. On that day witness Sonabai was busy in the field till 5.00 p.m. and waited for her husband. But he did not come to the field. Therefore, she went to Phaltan to sell vegetables. While she returned in the evening, later at about 7:00 p.m. from Phaltan, she came to know that her husband did not return to the house. She waited till 1000 p.m. and was sleeping along with her children and on the next day morning when she enquired about her husband with neighbourers, she did not get any information. Her nephew Ramesh came at about 8:00 a.m. and asked her to go to village Widani, when she went there, she saw her husband was lying dead in front of veterinary hospital. She came to know at that time that Balu had asked for an amount from Dnyandeo to buy liquor and Dnyandev told them Balu had murdered him by causing injuries on his body by means of stone in front of veterinary hospital. 12. The prosecution further placed reliance upon the evidence of PW 6 Vishwas, who also corroborated the fact that there was an incident when Balu had tried to snatch Mangalsutra from neck of Sonabai. Later, on 10.2.2003, according to Vishwas, Dnyandev was sitting near Veterinary Hospital, when Balu was sitting near the temple, Balu was under influence of liquor, while he was returning after easing out he saw Balu was holding stone and he had hit Dnyandeo with the said stone. Although witness Vishwas was asking Balu not to do so, he then went running towards the house of accused Balu to inform about the incident Dnyandeo fell down due to hitting of stone by the accused Balu. Brother of Balu was informed. He told witness PW 6 Vishwas that he will not intervene in the said incident and advised PW 6 Vishwas to go and sleep. On the next day morning at about 7:00 a.m. when he got up, he learnt about the death of Dnyandev. Several persons had gathered at the spot where the dead body of Dnyandev was lying. Thus, according to PW 6 Vishwas, due to the incident that Dnyandeo was not giving liquor to accused Balu which he was insisting upon Dnyandeo, incident took place. 13. Several persons had gathered at the spot where the dead body of Dnyandev was lying. Thus, according to PW 6 Vishwas, due to the incident that Dnyandeo was not giving liquor to accused Balu which he was insisting upon Dnyandeo, incident took place. 13. The prosecution then relied upon the evidence of PW 7 Sampat who is also another eyewitness to the incident and deposed that near the veterinary hospital, Balu Madne had came with a stone, he had started lowering down the stone to hit Dnyandev. When witness PW 7 Sampat held that stone and tried to pacify, Balu who abused the witness and asked witness to go to his house. Balu was asking Dnyandeo to give him amount to consume liquor and Dnyandeo replied that he was not having any amount. Another witness examined by the prosecution is PW 8 Shankar, who deposed about the dead body lying near veterinary hospital. The ocular versions of eye witnesses remained unshattered in the course of cross-examination regarding the incident. 14. The witnesses were cross-examined at length. The direct evidence of eyewitnesses has also received strong corroboration in the form of observations made by Forensic Science Laboratory in the form of C.A. report (Exh.49), the clothes recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest, as also clothes of the deceased, weapon of offence, stone, all were referred for examination of chemical analysis and the weapon of offence, stone, was found stained with human blood of “O” group which was blood group of the deceased Dnyandeo. While clothes of the accused were also found stained with blood of human origin of “O” group which was the blood group of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts leaving no escape route for the appellant to claim even diminished penal liability in the facts and circumstances of the case. The nature of injuries, the part of the body and the nature of weapon of offence, used for to commit crime, do indicate that the appellant had intended to cause death of Dnyandeo and had no excuse, whatsoever, to cause death of Dnyandeo. In the result, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned trial Judge had by well reasoned judgment considered the entire evidence led on record and arrived at finding of facts correctly to the effect that the accused Balu had intentionally and voluntarily caused death of Dnyandeo and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. 15. We do not find any cogent ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was strong evidence, direct as well as circumstantial, against the appellant-accused. No interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and order of conviction. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.