Judgment :- P.D. Kode, J. By present appeal, appellant had thrown challenge to judgment and order dated 9.7.2004 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.120/2002 convicting him for commission of murder of one Laxman Ramkrushna Naik and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one year. 2. The said trial has arisen out of charge sheet submitted by Jaulka Police Station for commission of such offence against the appellant as a result of investigation of F.I.R. No.35/2002 Exh.13 on 18.7.2002 registered by PSI S.G. Pawar of Jaulka Police Station regarding murder of deceased committed in night in between 16.7.2002 up till 18.7.2002 on the basis of oral report Exh.12 lodged by elder brother of deceased namely Eknath Ramkrushna Naik, PW1. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the aforesaid prosecution as revealed from the record are as under :- a) PW1 Eknath, deceased Laxman and appellant were residing at village Kinhi Raja in Malegaon Tahsil. Appellant was close friend of deceased and had lent Rs.1,000/-to him. Appellant was behind him for returning said amount and on said count conflict has arisen in between them. On 16.7.2002 lunch was arranged in Hanuman Temple of village Kinhi Raja for inviting Lord Varuna. PW1 and appellant had been to temple for lunch. After lunch in between 12.00 to 13.00 hours PW1 returned to house. However, deceased and appellant remained at the temple for distribution of food to devotees. The deceased did not return home till late night, PW1 was unable to trace out the deceased in search made by him on the next day. b) After about two days i.e. on 18.7.2002 PW1 had witnessed a crowd in front of the house of the deceased. A stench was oozing from the said house locked from outside. PW1 went upon the roof and peeped in house of appellant and noticed corpse of his brother Laxman lying in one room. The door of said house was also locked from inside. The complainant narrating these facts lodged report Exh.12 with Police Station upon which above stated F.I.R. for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the appellant. The door of said house was also locked from inside. The complainant narrating these facts lodged report Exh.12 with Police Station upon which above stated F.I.R. for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the appellant. The investigation of said FIR had led to the conclusion of appellant having committed murder of Laxman on the count of money dispute and hence chargesheet was submitted against the appellant in the Court. 4. After committal of case, trial was taken up by learned Sessions Judge, Washim. The appellant vide his plea Exh.6 pleaded not guilty to charge Exh.5 framed on 22.4.2004. 5. The prosecution examined in all nine witnesses at the trial and has also relied upon documents of which details are given while discussing the prosecution evidence. The cursory glance at the prosecution evidence reveals of there being no eye witness to the crime committed and the prosecution has rested mainly upon circumstantial evidence i.e. various circumstances established from the evidence of the witnesses examined and the documents proved. 6. The defence of appellant at trial was that of total denial. The appellant to questions put to him during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence has either claimed the same being false or himself being not aware of the same. However he had not given any reason regarding witnesses having deposed against him. He also did not claim to examine any witnesses in support of his defence. 7. The trial court after appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution came to the conclusion of prosecution having established (i) deceased having died homicidal death, (ii) appellant was having motive for commission of crime, (iii) deceased was seen lastly alive in the company of appellant and (iv) body of deceased was found in the house of appellant with the house locked from outside. The trial court came to the conclusion that all the circumstances were consistent with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the same ruled out any other person being the culprit. The trial court thus came to the conclusion of the appellant having committed the murder of the deceased and convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. 8. Mr. The trial court came to the conclusion that all the circumstances were consistent with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the same ruled out any other person being the culprit. The trial court thus came to the conclusion of the appellant having committed the murder of the deceased and convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. 8. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, learned appointed counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the circumstances relied by the prosecution failed to form a complete chain leading to the sole inference of the guilt of the accused as some of the said circumstances cannot be said to have been established by the said evidence adduced. He further urged that : (i) the prosecution had failed to adduce cogent evidence that the house in which the body was found belonged to the appellant or he was residing in the same. As the evidence of PW2 itself reveals that police had called the said panch at the house of Anandrao Narayanrao Dakhore i.e. father of appellant and not at the house of appellant. (ii) the evidence of PW3 does not reveal or even otherwise it is not established that the sword allegedly discovered and seized at the behest of the appellant was stained with blood or key allegedly discovered and seized i.e. both under memorandum and discovery panchanamas respectively Exh.20 and 21 was used for any material purpose, considered along with backdrop that key was not even used by police for opening the house makes the said entire evidence wholly inconsequential and as such does not advance the prosecution case in any manner. (iii) the evidence of wife of deceased PW4 Kusum itself reveals that the appellant had returned to the deceased amount of Rs.1,000/-borrowed, and as such the same militates against the theory of the prosecution of there being quarrel regarding the same and hence appellant having motive to commit murder of the deceased. (iv) the evidence of PW5 Shankar considered in proper perceptive fails to establish either police had been in search of appellant on 16.7.2002 at the Hotel of the said witness at Akola and as such fails to establish that the appellant was absconding. (iv) the evidence of PW5 Shankar considered in proper perceptive fails to establish either police had been in search of appellant on 16.7.2002 at the Hotel of the said witness at Akola and as such fails to establish that the appellant was absconding. (v) the evidence of PW6 Baban also runs counter to the prosecution case of the appellant having motive against the deceased as the said evidence reveals that said witness had given Rs.1,000/- to the deceased and not to appellant. (vi) the evidence of PW7 Gajanan considered in proper perceptive does not reveal any potential circumstance against the appellant, considering the function arranged in the said village on the relevant date. Even it is accepted that on the said day the appellant had taken deceased along with him still there being no proximity of time in between the said event with the time at which deceased could be said to have died, no value can be given to said circumstance. (vii) the evidence of PW8 Tukaram considered along with the evidence of PW2 clearly reveals that on the basis of the same conclusion cannot be drawn that the house in which the body was found was belonging to appellant, as PW2 had said the same being the house of father of appellant. (viii) the other facet from the evidence of PW8 of having seen deceased and appellant firstly wandering in the rows of person dining at the temple and, thereafter, having been to the house of the appellant is also inconsequential as there is no proximity of the said event with the death of the deceased or with finding of corpse of deceased. (ix) the learned counsel thus urged that even in the event of accepting, the deceased being seen lastly alive in the company of the appellant, considering the place at which he was seen, the time at which he was seen with the appellant and the event which had occurred on the said day and the evidence adduced altogether not ruling the possibility of both of them having been to some other place and there being no evidence of appellant having taken deceased to his house and/or the house in which dead body was found being not established to be house of appellant and prosecution having failed to establish motive for appellant to commit such act on the basis of the said evidence conclusion of the guilt of the appellant is not at all warranted. (x) that cardinal rule of the criminal law requires prosecution to establish its case beyond pale of doubt by standing upon its legs and is not entitled to take advantage of the weakness of the defence and in event of evidence revealing two views possible from the evidence then the view beneficial to the accused is required to be accepted by giving him the benefit of doubt. In the present case such thing being evident the appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving such benefit by allowing his appeal. 9. Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State supported impugned judgment and order and urged that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion of circumstantial evidence adduced having established guilt of the appellant as the said evidence clearly establishes : (i) of deceased having met with unnatural homicidal death, (ii) the body of the deceased being found in the house of the appellant, (iii) appellant having motive for commission of crime through the evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW6, (iv) deceased being lastly seen alive in his company as established by the evidence of PW1, PW7 and PW8, (v) the conduct of the appellant of fleeing away as he could not be arrested up till 19.7.2002. He urged that considering the proximity of the said circumstance of last seen together with the time of death as denoted by prosecution evidence considered along with the other two circumstances leads to irresistible conclusion about guilt of the appellant for committing murder of deceased. He urged that considering the proximity of the said circumstance of last seen together with the time of death as denoted by prosecution evidence considered along with the other two circumstances leads to irresistible conclusion about guilt of the appellant for committing murder of deceased. He urged that failure on part of appellant to explain the inferences arising of circumstance of last seen with deceased and corpse of deceased being found in his house leads to the conclusion as arrived by the trial Court and as such no interference is warranted with the judgment delivered by the trial Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties and carefully perused the record for appreciating the same. 11. Firstly taking up the question of deceased having met homicidal death or otherwise, the reference to the evidence of PW2 panch for inquest panchanama Exh.17 and spot panchanama Exh.16 along with the matters stated in the said panchanama and the same considered along with the evidence of PW1 Eknath who had seen the corpse of deceased in the house of appellant from the roof of said house and who had thereafter lodged the report Exh.12 and so also the evidence of PW7 to the extent of having seen body by peeping through the window of the house and of PW8 Tukaram, the same clearly establishes the manner in which the corpse of deceased with injuries thereon was found lying in the house which was undisputedly locked from outside. Needless to add that the said facet of the prosecution evidence and so also even fact of deceased having died homicidal death is not seriously disputed on behalf of the appellant. Apart from the appellant having not disputed such a facet, said evidence further considered along with the evidence of PW9 Dr. Chawan who had performed post-mortem and his post-mortem notes Exh.29 and the opinion given by him clearly establishes deceased having died homicidal death. 12. Such a conclusion is inevitable as the evidence of PW 9 Dr. Chavan reveals that while performing autopsy on 19.7.2002 at 9.30 p.m. during external examination he had noted following serious injuries on the corpse i.e.: (i) Incised would, size 10 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm bone deep, over left cheek, in transverse direction. 12. Such a conclusion is inevitable as the evidence of PW 9 Dr. Chavan reveals that while performing autopsy on 19.7.2002 at 9.30 p.m. during external examination he had noted following serious injuries on the corpse i.e.: (i) Incised would, size 10 cm x 3 cm x 3 cm bone deep, over left cheek, in transverse direction. (ii) Incised wound, size 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep, over left shoulder region, interior aspect, in verticle direction. (iii) Incised would, two in numbers, size 5 x 1 x 1 cm and 3 x 1 x 1 cm. Over left para ambalical region, in transverse direction with fracture of left mandible bone. 13. The evidence of PW9 further reveals that during the internal examination he had noticed brain matter having liquified and coming out of cranial cavity with skull bone disfigured due to fracture of skull bone and so also parietal and frontal bones being fractured. He had also noticed signs of decomposition like pool of moving maggots covering whole head including face. He had observed similar feature regarding other organs which were decomposed. He had given cause of death as cardio respiratory arrest due to shock because of head injury and polytrauma. He had also deposed of internal injuries corresponding to external injuries noticed by him during autopsy. He had further opined of the same must have been caused by hard and blunt object and all of them being dangerous to life with death having occurred after three to four hours from last meals and/or within 48 to 72 hours from the commencement of post-mortem. 14. Upon scrutiny of his evidence the same is found duly corroborated by autopsy note Exh.29 prepared by him. Though he has admitted that he was not able to come to the conclusion whether the injuries noted by him were post-mortem or antemortem still the said factor clearly appears to be redundant having regard to the fact that decomposition of body had not only commenced but stage for formation of maggots had passed. In short, close scrutiny of evidence of PW9 in our considered opinion does not reveal any circumstance rendering his evidence unacceptable. In short, close scrutiny of evidence of PW9 in our considered opinion does not reveal any circumstance rendering his evidence unacceptable. Having regard to the same and considering the place at which the said body was found and there being absolutely no indication suggestive of any accident could have occurred at said place, the same leads to the conclusion as observed earlier as the same in turn excludes the death being for any other reason other than homicidal death. 15. Now considering the other circumstances established by the prosecution and considering the evidence of PW1, the glance at the same clearly reveals the appellant being in company of deceased at the temple where dinner programme was arranged, PW1 having left by 12.00 to 13.00 noon but deceased having continued to remain at the said place along with the appellant, deceased having not returned to home by night, deceased being not found during search made by him on the next day and day thereafter himself having seen people gathered at house of the appellant as stench was coming from the said house and, thereafter, himself having been upon the roof and having seen dead body of his brother in the house and door of the house being locked. As an another facet his evidence also discloses of there being dispute between deceased and the appellant, appellant having lent of Rs. 1,000/-to the deceased and the quarrels having ensued in between them on the said count. The further part of his evidence reveals of having lodged report Exh.12 with the police and FIR Exh.13 registered upon the same. 16. The scrutiny of his evidence reveals of the same being duly corroborated by report lodged by him. It also reveals of himself having candidly admitted of his brother consuming alcohol. The cross examination reveals that police were required to broke open the lock for opening door of said house of the appellant but were not required to break planks of the door. Having regard to the said answer it is difficult to accept his claim that the door of the said house was also locked from inside i.e. a claim which is also not found supported by the evidence of witnesses who had visited the house on the day on which body was found in the house. 17. Having regard to the said answer it is difficult to accept his claim that the door of the said house was also locked from inside i.e. a claim which is also not found supported by the evidence of witnesses who had visited the house on the day on which body was found in the house. 17. In the same context it can be further added that for discrediting him about his said claim of the house being locked from inside as well as outside, the omission to such effect has been brought on record on behalf of appellant from the report lodged by him. Having regard to the same, his claim of door being locked from inside will be required to .be discarded, however, the same being locked from outside will not be liable to be discarded in view of his substantive evidence to the effect of police being required to broke lock upon door having remain unshattered during cross-examination. 18. The scrutiny of his evidence further reveals of appellant having mother, father and brother and having lands at Shendurgamore being brought on the record. However, PW1 having denied the further suggestion alike other suggestions denied by him that most of the time appellant was residing at Shendurga-more along with his family members, it is difficult to accept criticism made by learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution by cogent evidence having not established that the house in which the body of deceased was found was that of the appellant. It can be further added that the evidence having established the house being locked, key being recovered from the appellant also leads to the conclusion of faceat of the appellant having mother, father and brother would be redundant factor, for not accepting the prosecution contention that the same was the house of the appellant. Such conclusion is obvious in absence of the appellant having established on record that he was not residing at the said house and/or the said mother, father and brother were also residing in the said house. 19. As a net result of the aforesaid, it can be safely said that by the said evidence prosecution has duly established of corpse of the deceased after two days after the programme in the temple was found in the house of the appellant. 19. As a net result of the aforesaid, it can be safely said that by the said evidence prosecution has duly established of corpse of the deceased after two days after the programme in the temple was found in the house of the appellant. The same has also established that there were quarrels in between the appellant and the deceased on the count of money lend by the appellant to him i.e. a facet not even denied on part of appellant. Such a conclusion is inevitable in spite of omission to the said effect attempted to be brought on the record during the cross examination of PW1, as examining the said aspect in light of Exh.12 it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously allowed such a question in spite of such a matter being borne from the same and omissions being restricted only with respect to the precise amount lent which cannot be considered as an omissions amounting to contradiction. 20. Now reference to the evidence of PW2 panch for inquest and spot though reveals that his evidence reveals that he was called at the house of Anandrao Narayanrao Dakore in true sense considering the said evidence in light of said panchanamas Exh.17 and Exh.16 reveals that he was called at the house of Narayanrao Dakore. Having regard to the same and there being no other evidence surfaced on the record to come to the conclusion that the said house was that of Anandrao Dakore and even the honest witness is bound to commit some mistake while giving evidence, lead to the conclusion that as per police the said house might have been that of Narayanrao Dakore i.e. father of the appellant. Now considering the said mistake made by witness it is difficult to accept on the basis of his evidence that the same was house of father of appellant and not of appellant. Such a conclusion is obvious as PW2 does'nt appears to be certain as to who was the owner of the said house. The reason for the same is also apparently found from the material surfaced on record during the evidence of PW1 in which it has been brought on the record of the appellant was having other property at Shendurga property so also at Bramha Wada. The reason for the same is also apparently found from the material surfaced on record during the evidence of PW1 in which it has been brought on the record of the appellant was having other property at Shendurga property so also at Bramha Wada. Similar suggestion being also given to PW2 but himself having denied the same still considering the said evidence in proper perceptive it clearly appears that the same was the house of Dakore family. It needs no saying that houses in villages are generally said to be that of the head of family. Having regard to the same it can be safely said that the evidence of PW2 though to some extent corroborates evidence of PW1 of the same being the house of the appellant the same certainly does not establish that the said house was not that of appellant as tried to be canvassed by learned appointed counsel for the appellant. 21. Now reference to the evidence of PW3 panch Vishwanath regarding discovery and seizure of Sword and Key in consequent to statement leading to discovery of the same made by appellant; under memorandum and discovery panchanamas respectively Exh. 19 and 20; though there appears substance in the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the said evidence is redundant in view of admission given by the witness recorded in paragraph no.4 of his deposition that panchanama was already going on when he had reached to the house of the accused and/or the said discovery and seizure is insignificant in view of no blood being detected on the said sword or key being not utilised for any meaningful purpose still fact of said evidence revealing the same being house of appellant cannot be ignored. Thus, even the said to some extent have a corroborative value to corroborate the evidence of earlier witnesses of the appellant possessing a house of village Kini-raja. 22. Now considering the evidence of wife of the deceased PW4 Kusum the same reveals her evidence being adduced about the aspects of there being money transaction in between appellant and deceased, there being a quarrel in between them upon the same, the deceased having not returned after having left his house for the temple along with the appellant and third day body of deceased being found at the house of accused lying in pool of blood. 23. 23. The close scrutiny of the evidence of PW4 though reveals some disparity in her evidence regarding whether appellant had lend the money to the deceased or otherwise, her evidence does not reveal any other circumstance elicited during cross examination except the facet of such quarrel being in the nature of the omission being brought on record. Since the disparity is regarding precise nature of money transaction, merely a rustic lady is not aware of details about the same would never a good ground for discarding her evidence on the said count. Similarly considering the material point upon which her evidence is adduced i.e. deceased having left along with appellant on the relevant day and having not returned thereafter and since every omission cannot be said to be a material omission unless and until the same is shown to be having an effect of contradiction, her evidence will not be liable to be rejected on the said count. It will not be out of place to state that though learned APP tried to canvass of such omissions being not established by the defence on record due to the same being not proved through the investigating officer, we are unable to accept the said submission in view of the prosecution having failed to give such an opportunity to defence by examining the investigating officer at trial who had recorded the statement of said lady and so also the other witnesses. Having regard to the said aspect we are unable to accept the said submission, as at criminal trial none of the party is entitled to draw benefit from own wrong i.e. in the instant case prosecution having failed to examine the Investigating Officer. As a net result it can be safely said that by the evidence of PW4 prosecution has established all the facets referred hereinabove upon which her evidence was adduced at trial. Needless to add amongst other the same also corroborates the evidence of the witnesses referred earlier about body of deceased being found in the house of the appellant. 24. As a net result it can be safely said that by the evidence of PW4 prosecution has established all the facets referred hereinabove upon which her evidence was adduced at trial. Needless to add amongst other the same also corroborates the evidence of the witnesses referred earlier about body of deceased being found in the house of the appellant. 24. In the instant case prosecution having not adduced the evidence of Investigating Officer and thus hardly there being any evidence regarding whereabouts of the appellant after his name as an culprit had come in picture after lodging of report Exh.12 by PW1, we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW5 Hotel Keeper from Akola is not helpful to the prosecution to advance case of prosecution as the said evidence does not transcend beyond police having been to his hotel and not even establishes the date on which they had been to the said place in search of the appellant. 25. Now considering the evidence of PW6 Baban whose evidence mainly reveals that eight days prior to incident appellant and deceased had been to his shop for money and he had paid Rs. 1,000/- to the deceased, though it is true that the said evidence does not reveal that appellant at that time had not done anything and PW6 had claimed of having paid amount to the appellant still the submission cannot be accepted that the said evidence runs counter to the prosecution case of appellant having motive against the deceased as tried to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the contrary, in the said context, the appellant having accompanied deceased is also an factor assuring to some extent the earlier inferences of there being monitory transaction in between the appellant and deceased. 26. On the contrary, in the said context, the appellant having accompanied deceased is also an factor assuring to some extent the earlier inferences of there being monitory transaction in between the appellant and deceased. 26. Now considering the evidence of PW7 and scrutinizing the same in light of answers brought in cross examination that his claim that deceased was along with him when he had been to Gujri Square and thereafter to temple for enjoying dinner and had met appellant at said place and appellant then was searching deceased, and under influence of alcohol and having told that he wanted to offer liquor to deceased and therefore asked PW7 to go home and not to accompany them and thereafter deceased and appellant had been to Gujri Square and after about three days he had learnt about the death of the deceased in the house of appellant and having seen body in the said house etc. is not found to have been shattered during cross-examination. Such a conclusion is inevitable in spite of the answers elicited during cross examination of his statement being recorded 10 to 12 days after incident and till then he had not disclosed about his said meeting with deceased and appellant to police or to anybody else prior to the said day. Such a conclusion is inevitable as the matters transpired on the said day cannot be said to be of significant nature considering the place at which they had met and the purpose for which appellant had asked PW7 to go to home. The same matter being not of nature giving reason for suspicion for PW7 to narrate the same immediately to somebody else or even the police immediately on the day on which body was found in the house of the appellant the said feature cannot be regarded as the one rendering evidence of said witness unreliable or unworthy credit. In the same context it will be necessary to say that mere delay in the recording of statement of any witness does not ipso facto will be factor for discarding his evidence unless some facet indicating that the prosecution is trying to rope the said witness for making a altogether new story is brought on the record. In the same context it will be necessary to say that mere delay in the recording of statement of any witness does not ipso facto will be factor for discarding his evidence unless some facet indicating that the prosecution is trying to rope the said witness for making a altogether new story is brought on the record. Having regard to the same and such a thing being not spelt from the evidence of PW7 nor his evidence being found to be improbable after scrutinizing the same on touchstone of probability, the same will not be liable to be rejected. 27. Now considering the evidence PW8 the same also reveals some what similar features i.e. claim staked by him of having seen deceased and appellant at temple and, thereafter, going towards the house of the deceased and after 2-3 days himself having learnt about the death of the deceased in the house of the appellant and having seen body of deceased lying in the said house with maggots formed in the corpse. Without unnecessarily repeating the reasoning given for an earlier witness it can be safely said for the same reasons for similar aspects of his statement being recorded five six days after the incident and till then himself having not disclosed the same to the Police or to anybody else prior to the same his evidence also will not be liable to be discarded. 28. Having regard to the aforesaid we find that prosecution has duly established the circumstances as narrated in the discussion made so far. The said evidence has duly established of the deceased being found lastly alive in the company of the appellant prior to his corpse was found three days thereafter in the house of appellant. The evidence of doctor has also established deceased having met with homicidal death. The evidence of PW9 also reveals the probable date of death would be of 16.7.2002 i.e. prior to 72 to 48 hours prior to performing autopsy. In addition to the same the prosecution has established of there being quarrel in between deceased and appellant upon monitory transaction. Ultimately the corpse of deceased was found in the house of appellant. The evidence of PW9 also reveals the probable date of death would be of 16.7.2002 i.e. prior to 72 to 48 hours prior to performing autopsy. In addition to the same the prosecution has established of there being quarrel in between deceased and appellant upon monitory transaction. Ultimately the corpse of deceased was found in the house of appellant. Thus considering all these circumstances we find that appellant having failed to explain the same and particularly the circumstance of himself being in the company of deceased prior to death and corpse being found in his house, the said circumstances considered along with other above referred circumstances has serious potential to form a formidable chain of circumstances pointing towards the sole inference of the appellant being perpetrator of the crime. Needless to add that the said circumstance are compatible with the hypothesis of guilt of the appellant. 29. Having regard to the same, in our considered opinion the trial court had not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the appellant which is challenged in the present appeal. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. We also quantify fees of Advocate V.M. Deshpande, who has rendered valuable service in disposal of appeal at Rs.2,500/-. 30. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.