Judgment : 1. This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 18th October, 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.140/2003. In the said case, the appellant and his younger brother Dattatraya were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC on the charge of causing murder of Suresh Kashid, a resident of the same village i.e. Village Dahitane, on 15th January, 2003. 2. As per the prosecution case, deceased Suresh was involved in illicit relationship with the mother of the accused when the accused were minors. With that grudge in his mind, accused no.1 and his father had assaulted Suresh sometimes in 1993 and he was forced to leave village Dahitane. He started staying at Pune but during the Diwali festival of the year 2002, the family of the deceased i.e. wife and children returned to the village but the deceased on account of fear of the accused preferred to stay at the nearby village by name Munashi. The accused got knowledge of the said fact and decided to kill him. On 15th January, 2003, there was a weekly bazaar at village Vairag which is a close by village to Dahitane and the accused had learnt that the deceased could be traced in the said bazaar. Both of them went to bazaar and noticed that the deceased was selling vegetables. They kept a watch on him and around 5 p.m., he was attacked by both the brothers in the market itself. Accused no.1 had caused multiple injuries by a sickle on the deceased and the deceased collapsed. Both the accused went to the police station and accused no.1 lodged the report and he also produced the sickle. He was arrested and referred for medical examination. Bloodstained clothes on the person of the accused as well as sickle were seized. The report submitted by the accused was reduced in writing and was treated as an FIR (Exhibit 40). The police team reached the spot and the dead body was recovered for post mortem which was carried out on 16th January, 2003 at the Primary Health Centre, Vairag. Post mortem notes at Exhibit-11 were received by the Investigating Officer. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. The police team reached the spot and the dead body was recovered for post mortem which was carried out on 16th January, 2003 at the Primary Health Centre, Vairag. Post mortem notes at Exhibit-11 were received by the Investigating Officer. The seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. Both the accused were arrested on surrender and on completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. On committal, the charge was framed at Exhibit 5. The prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses and claimed that PW 6 Laxmibai Kashid, PW 8 Haridas Kshirsagar, PW 9 Dattu Malage and PW 11 Popat Kabade were eye witnesses. PW 1 Balasaheb Jadhav, PW 2 Navnath Khune, PW 3 Vijay Parbalkar, PW 4 Raju Attar, PW 12 Suresh Kamble were examined as panch witnesses. However, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 8, PW 9, PW 11 and PW 12 turned hostile. PW 7 Parmeshwar Kashid, PW 8 Ranjana Kashid and PW 13 Bharat Kashid were examined to support the motive behind the crime. PW 14 Dr.Pravin Deshmukh had conducted the post mortem as well as examined the accused when they were produced before him late in the night on 15th January, 2003 while they were under arrest. PW 15 Yashwant Gawari was the Investigating Officer. 3. PW 14 Dr.Pravin Deshmukh stated before the trial court that on 15th January, 2003, he was attached to the Vairag Primary Health Centre as a Medical Officer and on 16th January, 2003, he had conducted post mortem of the dead body of Suresh Ratnappa Kashid between 9 to 10.30 p.m. On external examination, he noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- Clean incised wounds 1. Over neck interiorly slightly oblique 8 CM x 4 CM x 3 CM, 2. over scalp, occipital area 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, 3. over right hand over palm 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, 4. over forehead oblique 8 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm 5. over scalp between two parietal bones 11 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm, 6. over scalp between two parietal bones just 2 cm lateral to above mentioned injury on right side 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm, 7. over neck posterior aspect 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, 8. over scalp between two parietal bones 11 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm, 6. over scalp between two parietal bones just 2 cm lateral to above mentioned injury on right side 3 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm, 7. over neck posterior aspect 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm, 8. over neck backside just below to above injury 7 cm x 3 cm x 1.5 cm. The doctor clarified that all the above injuries were caused by sharp weapon and they were ante mortem. On internal examination, the doctor found the following injuries :- 1. skull fracture occipital, frontal and parietal over injury sites, 2. below scalp bleeding was found in occipital, frontal and parietal lobes. He opined that the death must have occurred within three or four hours of the last meal and the cause of death was “haemorrhagic shock due to injury on vital organs and vessels”. He prepared the post mortem report and signed it (Exhibit 11, which is an admitted document). The doctor further clarified that the sharp cut injuries noticed on the deceased was possible by muddemal article no.1 which was shown to him in the court. He further stated that all the injuries noticed were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the death must have taken place within 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination. The suggestions given to him in the cross examination were denied and there was nothing brought out from the cross-examination to doubt this expert's opinion. Hence, the trial court was fully justified in holding that Suresh Ratannpa Kashid died a homicidal death on account of the injuries he had sustained on 15th January, 2003 by a weapon like sickle (Article 1). 4. To prove the motive behind the offence, the prosecution examined in all three witnesses PW 7 Parmeshwar Kashid, PW 10 Ranjana Kashid and PW 13 Bharat Kashid. PW 7 was the Sarpanch of village Dahitane during the years 1988 to 1994. He stated before the trial court that in January 1993, the accused had assaulted the deceased on the suspicion that the deceased was involved in an illicit relationship with the mother of the accused and Suresh was taken to the hospital and treated. The Sarpanch had compromised and warned the father of theaccused that such incident should not be repeated. He stated before the trial court that in January 1993, the accused had assaulted the deceased on the suspicion that the deceased was involved in an illicit relationship with the mother of the accused and Suresh was taken to the hospital and treated. The Sarpanch had compromised and warned the father of theaccused that such incident should not be repeated. At the same time, he advised the deceased to leave village Dahitane if he wanted to have peace in his life. He further stated that on or about 20 days prior to the incident, he had met the deceased in village Munashi, Taluka Barshi and had advised him not to enter village Dahitane on account of the threats to his life. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had hearsay knowledge of the alleged illicit relationship and he could not produce any medical evidence to support his statement that the deceased was hospitalised in the year 1993 on account of the injuries inflicted on him by the accused. He also denied the suggestion that the accused belonged to the rival group and that he was on inimical terms with the accused. PW 10 Ranjana is the wife of the deceased. She admitted before the trial court that she had heard about the illicit relationship between her husband and the mother of the accused. They had left village Dahitane and were residing at Pune for sometime. She came to village Dahitane along with the children during the Diwali festival prior to the date of the incident. She used to visit and meet her husband at village Munashi as he was not able to enter village Dahitane. On 15th January, 2003, she had gone to village Munashi and had gone to the house of Hari Patil along with her husband. The deceased and her husband went to the bazaar at Vairag with onions in gunny bags at about 11.30 a.m. After half an hour, she also left for the bazaar. PW 13 Bharat Kashid is the brother of the deceased. He stated before the trial court that he was residing at Solapur when he was examined before the court and after the death of his father, his brother was staying at village Dahitane but he had to leave the village on account of the threats to his life by the accused. He stated before the trial court that he was residing at Solapur when he was examined before the court and after the death of his father, his brother was staying at village Dahitane but he had to leave the village on account of the threats to his life by the accused. He stated before the trial court that his deceased brother had illicit relationship with the mother of the accused and on that count there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased. The accused used to regularly beat the deceased and because of that fear, the deceased had left village Dahitane and shifted to Pune. In the year 1993, the accused and their father had beaten the deceased and then Sarpanch (PW 7) had intervened. He had advised the deceased to leave the village. He had visited Dahitane on 26th October, 2002 and met PW 10 Ranjana along with her children. The deceased continued to stay at village Munashi which is about four kilometres away from the village Dahitane. He stated that a complaint was lodged with the Vairag Police Station when the deceased was assaulted in the year 1993 but he did not have a copy of the complaint. He also stated that no private complaint was filed before the trial court. He admitted that PW 7 belonged to different branches of Kashid family and he denied the suggestion that his brother was not taken to the hospital by PW 7 and that PW 7 had not settled the dispute between the accused and the deceased. 5. On assessment of the evidence of these three witnesses, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution proved the motive behind the assault on the deceased by the accused. Accused no.2 has been acquitted by the trial court and there is no challenge to the said order of acquittal. We will have to, therefore, consider the case of the prosecution only against accused no.1. 6. The evidence of PW 14 Dr.Pravin Deshmukh proved that on 15th January, 2003, the accused were referred to him by the police for medical examination and he examined accused no.1 at about 10.30 p.m. and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. C.L.W. over right palm 3 cm x ½ x ½ cm, 2. C.L.W. over scalp back side 3 CM x ½ x ½ cm, 3. C.L.W. over right palm 3 cm x ½ x ½ cm, 2. C.L.W. over scalp back side 3 CM x ½ x ½ cm, 3. abrasion over left hand index finger ¼ cm x ¼ cm. As per the doctor, the age of injuries was between 6 to 8 hours and injury no.1 was possible by a sharp weapon whereas injury no.2 chould be possible by hard and blunt object. He confirmed to have issued the Medical Certificate at Exhibit 35. Thus, accused no.1 was arrested and referred for medical examination which was conducted by PW 14. The accused had sustained injuries which were possible by a sharp weapon and hard and blunt object. It was submitted by Mr.Salunke, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW 15 was silent on the arrest of the accused and there was no arrest panchnama on record. These contentions have been repelled by the evidence of PW 14 and the Medical Certificate (Exhibit 34). 7 PW 1 Balasaheb Jadhav was the panch witness for the seizure panchnama at Exhibit 14. He stated before the trial court that on 15th January, 2003, he was called by the Vairag Police Station and he was shown a sickle which was attached under the said panchnama. He confirmed to have signed the panchnama at Exhibit 14 along with other accused through Shashikant. He also confirmed that the contents of Exhibit 14 were correct. He also identified muddemal article no.1 as the same Koyata which was attached in the police station. Exhibit 14 – panchnama was drawn between 7.45 to 8.10 p.m. at the police station. It also states that accused no.1 was present in the police station and he disclosed his name as Bhau Vitthal Jagdale, resident of village Dahitane. Along with other articles, article no.1-sickle was sent for chemical analysis and the report at Exhibit 45 indicated that weapon was stained with blood of group ‘A’. The clothes of the deceased were also found to have blood-stains of group ‘A’. The CA report at Exhibit 47 also showed that the blood group of accused no.1 Bhau Vitthal Jagdale is also ‘A’. 8. Now coming to the eye witnesses evidence, as noted earlier, out of the four eye witnesses, three of them turned hostile and only PW 6 has supported the prosecution case. The CA report at Exhibit 47 also showed that the blood group of accused no.1 Bhau Vitthal Jagdale is also ‘A’. 8. Now coming to the eye witnesses evidence, as noted earlier, out of the four eye witnesses, three of them turned hostile and only PW 6 has supported the prosecution case. It was submitted by Mr.Salunke, the learned Counsel for the appellant, that she was not a reliable witness for more than one reasons. He submitted that she has been a regular visitor to the police station at Vairag, the father of the accused was witness in the case filed by PW 6 and he had turned hostile, she had not disclosed about the incident to anybody till her statement was recorded after about 12 days from the date of the incident and her evidence was self contradictory. So far as the ground of this witness being in close liaison with the police is concerned, the trial court has rightly noted that the documents on record (Exhibit 57 and 58) were copies of the private complaints filed by PW 6 and she filed her complaints because the police station did not register an FIR. The trial in these private cases had concluded more than four years before the date of the incident and it was unbelievable that just because the father of the accused who was the witness in the complaint filed by PW 6 had turned hostile, she cooked up a story and joined hands with the prosecution against the accused. She specifically stated before the trial court that on the date of the incident, she went to the Vairag bazaar at 3 p.m. and started her return journey about 5.30 p.m. On the way, there was an electric depot on Hingani road and she saw both the accused assaulting the deceased. Accused no.1 had assaulted the deceased with sickle and the deceased had sustained injuries on his head, throat and hand. On seeing the blood oozing from the person of Suresh, she felt giddy and she sat down and she had seen the deceased lying on the ground while the accused fled away. She reached the village by a jeep at about 7.30 p.m. and the villagers were already aware of the incident. She also stated that she did not tell anyone in the jeep about the incident because the co-passengers were already aware of the incident. She reached the village by a jeep at about 7.30 p.m. and the villagers were already aware of the incident. She also stated that she did not tell anyone in the jeep about the incident because the co-passengers were already aware of the incident. After the incident, she went to Pune for two days and returned to the village. She also admitted that her statement was recorded about 15 days after the incident. She also stated that when the incident had taken place, there were other persons who had witnessed the incident. She admitted that she never attempted to separate the deceased and the accused and she was present at the spot for about one hour i.e. still 7 to 7.30 p.m. and the police had not arrived at the scene till then. She had specifically stated that there was no criminal case against her in Barshi Court and that she had filed cases in the said court. She was a regular visitor to the court and she also visited the police station. In her cross examination, she admitted that she had seen the accused first time while they were running away with sticks in their hands and attacking the deceased. Mr.Salunke, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW 6 is self contradictory. At one stage, she claimed to have seen accused no.1 attacking the deceased with a sickle and on the other hand, in the cross examination, she stated that the accused were having sticks in their hand while they were hitting the deceased. We do not find any merit in these submissions. It is possible that accused no.1 had a stick in one hand and the sickle in the other. Having considered the testimony of this witness, we do not find any error in the view taken by the trial court in accepting her as a genuine and reliable witness. All the grounds urged for discarding her testimony have been properly dealt with by the trial court. 9. We have also noted from the record that after her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.A. on 27th January, 2003, she was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for recording her statement under Section 164 and such a statement was recorded though it was not placed before the trial court and was not used by either of the parties. The special feature of this case is the appellant himself surrendering to the police station and with the weapon (sickle) in his hand and bloodstained clothes on his person. The First Information Report at his behest (Exhibit 40) was recorded by PW 15. The trial court rightly referred to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 119 ):-“Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the first information. The information report as such is not substantive evidence. It may be used to corroborate the informant under S. 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under S. 145 of the Act, if the informant is called as a witness. If the first information is given by the accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under S. 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under S. 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant, see Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, dated 24-1-1964; ( AIR 1964 SC 1850 ), explaining Nisar Ali v. State of U.P., (S) AIR 1957 SC 366 and Dal Singh v. King Emperor, 44 Ind App 137: (AIR 1917 PC 25). But a confessional first information report to a police Officer cannot be used against the accused in view of S.25 of the Evidence Act.. IF the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S.25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of S.25 is lifted by S.27.” 10. The delay caused in recording the statement of PW 6 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by itself could not be fatal to the prosecution case. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of S.25 is lifted by S.27.” 10. The delay caused in recording the statement of PW 6 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by itself could not be fatal to the prosecution case. To some extent, the witness herself has explained the delay and in any case, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that PW 6 was a doubtful witness only because she did not go to the police station or did not approach the police so as to disclose the incident in time. Almost the entire village was aware of the incident as borne out from the evidence of PW 6 Laxmibai and the prosecution had not relied on the solitary witness. The other three witnesses turned hostile. PW 6 on her own also stated reliable circumstances for being present in the bazaar at the first instance and subsequently, at the spot which was on her way back to village Dahitane. Therefore, she could not be termed as a got-up witness. 11. In the premises, we are satisfied that the prosecution proved its case against accused no.1 beyond any reasonable doubts that he assaulted Suresh at Vairag bazaar with a sickle and caused multiple injuries to him as a result of which he died on the spot. Mr.Salunke, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW 15 failed to prove that he had visited the spot of the incident on 15th January, 2003 and drawn the spot panchnama as well as the inquest panchnama. Even if this is accepted, in our opinion, these irregularities have not affected the prosecution case more so when the accused surrendered immediately after the incident along with the weapon in his hand and he was referred for medical examination which was conducted by PW 14. In his statement recorded under Section 313, the appellant did not take any defence and the mere failure of the prosecution to explain the circumstances under which the appellant sustained injuries would not prejudice the prosecution case. There is no plausible defence taken by the accused in line with the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. 12. Hence, this appeal must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No.140/2003 is hereby confirmed. There is no plausible defence taken by the accused in line with the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. 12. Hence, this appeal must fail and the same is hereby dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No.140/2003 is hereby confirmed. The accused is entitled to set off, if any.