JUDGMENT (PER P. B. Varale, J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, dated 10th May, 2005, in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2004, by which the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.400/( Rupees Four hundred only), in default of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months ; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.400/( Rupees Four hundred only) in default of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized in brief as follows : P.W.1 Dilip Sontakke, lodged a report at Police Station, Tumsar on 08/09/2004 stating therein that he along with his family members, reside at Sundar Tola village. On 08.9.2004, his father and brother Sanjay were sleeping in one room and he was sleeping in another room. At about 6.00 a.m., Munna Ramteke (appellant/accused) assaulted his father by giving blows of stick on his head. His brother Sanjay raised shouts and on hearing those shorts he immediately rushed to his room. He found that his father had received injuries on his head and there was profused bleeding. He further stated that on the dispute of returning borrowed money, accused Munna assaulted his father. He further stated that though his father was admitted in the Government Hospital, he could not survive and breath last in the hospital. P.W.5 Bhaurao Shende, who was attached to Tumsar police station at the relevant time, received the report of P.W.1 Dilip and endorsed the same and on the basis of the report registered an offence. The First Information Report in printed format was also prepared. The same is at Exh.10. P.W.8 Shobharao Shende, Police Inspector attached to police station, Tumsar at the relevant time, took over the investigation. He immediately rushed to the hospital and drew inquest panchanama. He also rushed to the spot of the incident and prepared the spot panchanama in the presence of panchas. The accused was apprehended on the spot by the neighbours of P.W.1 Dilip, who rushed on the spot on hearing the shouts raised by Dilip. He immediately rushed to the hospital and drew inquest panchanama. He also rushed to the spot of the incident and prepared the spot panchanama in the presence of panchas. The accused was apprehended on the spot by the neighbours of P.W.1 Dilip, who rushed on the spot on hearing the shouts raised by Dilip. The stick used for assault by the accused, the blood mixed soil, simple soil, bed sheet and the blood stained trouser of the deceased were seized from the spot by drawing seizure panchanamas at Exhs.15 and 31. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The Investigating Officer P.W.8 Shobharao forwarded the above referred articles collected in the investigation for chemical analysis to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Nagpur vide requisition at Exh.32. The dead body of Dinaji was referred for autopsy. On receipt of the post mortem report, Chemical Analyser’s report and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Judge found the evidence brought by the prosecution sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced the appellant/ accused as aforestated. The said judgment is under challenge before us. 3. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel appointed for the appellant/accused submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is based on the testimonies of P.W.1 Dilip Sontakke, P.W.2 Sanjay Sontakke, and P.W.3 Smt. Chandrakala Sontakke, who are the close relatives i.e. sons and wife, respectively, of deceased Dina and as such they are interested witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the testimony of interested witnesses ought not to have been relied upon by the trial Court. Mr Patwardhan, the learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the entry of the appellant in the house of Dina. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. It will be useful to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so as to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. It will be useful to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so as to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The prosecution has examined three eyewitnesses namely P.W.1 Dilip Sontakke, P.W.2 Sanjay Sontakke and P.W.3 Chandrakaka Sontakke, the sons and wife, respectively, of deceased Dina. In support of the case of the prosecution that deceased Dina died homicidal death, in addition to the ocular testimonies of these witnesses, the other evidence is in the form of medical evidence i.e. Post Mortem Report (Exh. 24) proved through P.W.6 Dr. Madhukar Lanje and Inquest Panchanama (Exh.12). proved through the Investigation Officer P.W.8 Shobharao Shende. The other incriminating circumstances against the appellant/accused are the seizure of the material namely blood stained bed sheet, pillow, clothes of the deceased and seizure of stick. 5. Before we deal with the ocular testimony of P.W.1, 2 and 3, we wish to deal with the medical evidence in the form of Post Mortem report (Exh.24), proved through P.W.6 Dr. Lanje so as to consider the aspect whether the prosecution proved the death of Dina being homicidal one. 6. P.W.6 Dr. Madhukar Lanje stated that at the relevant time i.e. on 08.09.2004, he was posted as Medical Officer at S. B. Government Hospital, Tumsar. The corpus of Dinaji Sontakke was referred to him and he performed post mortem on it between 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. P.W.6 Dr. Lanje further stated that on examination, he noticed following antemortem injuries : 1. Lacerated injury right eyebrow, horizontal, 3 cm x 1 cm x bony deep 2. Lacerated injury right parietal region, vertical 6 cm x 1 cm x bony deep. 3. Lacerated injury occipital region, right side, horizontal 3 cm x 1 cm x bony deep. 4. Fracture of right parietotemporal bone on palpation. He further stated that on internal examination, he noticed the following injuries : 1. Haematoma was present underneath injury no.2 mentioned in col. no.17 of P.M. Report. 2. Compound depressed fracture of right parietotemporal bone. 3. Meninges were congested. Brain was contested. P.W.6 Dr. Lanje opined that that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ, brain. Haematoma was present underneath injury no.2 mentioned in col. no.17 of P.M. Report. 2. Compound depressed fracture of right parietotemporal bone. 3. Meninges were congested. Brain was contested. P.W.6 Dr. Lanje opined that that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organ, brain. The stick i.e. weapon used in the assault on Dina, was forwarded to P.W.6 Dr. Lanje along with requisition, on 14.09.2004 seeking his opinion and he opined with a graphic description of Stick that the injury could have been caused with the said weapon. The weapon was sealed and handed over to PC Patle, B.No.45. The opinion report issued by P.W.6 Dr. Lanje is on record at Exh. 25. In view of the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Lanje, we hold that the prosecution has proved that deceased Dinaji died homicidal death. 7. Though, it will not be necessary, being an additional material on which reliance was placed by the prosecution, we may refer to the inquest panchanama (Exh.12) proved through the Investigating Officer P.W.8 Shobharao Shende. It was observed in the inquest panchanama that government hospital’s bandage was tied (around the head of the deceased) and the same was smeared with blood. Both the eyes were closed. Mark of injury was visible on the eye. Blood was visible on the mouth. 8. The most important circumstance against the appellant/ accused being the ocular version of the eyewitnesses, we shall now deal with the evidence of P.W.1 Dilip, P.W.2 Sanjay and P.W.3 Chandrakala. 9. P.W.1 Dilip Sontakke stated that his house consists of four rooms. On the day of the incident, he was occupying one room along with his wife, whereas his father, his younger brother Sanjay and his mother Chandrakala were occupying the other room. P.W.1 Dilip further stated that on 08.09.2004 at about 6.00 to 6.30 am, he heard shouts for help i.e. ‘Dhava – Dhava’. As he noticed that the sound was coming from the direction of other room of his house, he immediately rushed to the said room. At the same time his mother Chandrakala, who was sweeping the house, also rushed to the said room. P.W.1 Dilip witnessed Gautam inflicting blow of the stick over the head of his father. He along with his mother caught hold the appellant and snatched the stick from him. The villagers also gathered on the spot. At the same time his mother Chandrakala, who was sweeping the house, also rushed to the said room. P.W.1 Dilip witnessed Gautam inflicting blow of the stick over the head of his father. He along with his mother caught hold the appellant and snatched the stick from him. The villagers also gathered on the spot. His father had received bleeding injuries over his had. P.W.1 Dilip further stated that there were blood stains on the wall, bed sheet, pillow and paijama of his father. He further stated that a jeep vehicle was arranged for carrying his father to the hospital and he along with his uncle rushed to the hospital at Tumsar, but unfortunately, they could not save Dinaji and Dinaji succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 Dilip further stated that he lodged the report (Exh.9) to Police Station, Tumsar. He also gave the description of the stick. He further stated that his father had borrowed Rs.1,000/from the appellant and the appellant, 15 days prior to the incident, had demanded the amount to his father to which his father replied that the same would be returned after some days. Though, P.W.1 Dilip was subjected to cross-examination, nothing was elicited to dent the version of this witness. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 Dilip denied the suggestions that the room, which was occupied by the father of Dilip was closed and the main door of the house was also closed. P.W.1 Dilip had admitted that appellant Gautam was tenant of his uncle and the house of his uncle is in the neighborhood. He denied the suggestion that he was not aware of the transaction between the appellant and his father. 10. P.W.2 Sanjay Sontakke, the younger brother of P.W.1 Dilip, supports the version of P.W.1 Dilip. P.W.2 Sanjay stated that on the day of the incident, he was occupying the room along with his father and mother. He further stated that he was sharing the bed along with his father. He further stated that in the morning, he heard sound of his father raising cry ‘melo re bapa’. He woke up and noticed that the appellant was assaulting his father with a stick in his hands. P.W.2 Sanjay raised shout calling the members of the family saying ‘dhava’ on which his brother and mother rushed to the room. He further stated that the appellant/accused was assaulting his father. He woke up and noticed that the appellant was assaulting his father with a stick in his hands. P.W.2 Sanjay raised shout calling the members of the family saying ‘dhava’ on which his brother and mother rushed to the room. He further stated that the appellant/accused was assaulting his father. His brother snatched the stick from the hands of appellant. In the meantime, villagers gathered on the spot and took the appellant Gautam to the police chowki. P.W.2 Sanjay was also subjected to cross-examination. Though, there were certain omissions in his cross-examination, they are minor omissions and in no way affect the credibility of this witness. 11. The version of P.W.3 Chandrakala Sontakke is similar to the versions of P.W.1 and 2. P.W.3 Chandrakala stated that she was sleeping in a room along her husband and younger son. On the day of the incident, in the morning when she was sweeping courtyard, she heard the shouts raised by her son and rushed to the room. She found that the appellant was assaulting her husband. She further stated that his elder son Dilip snatched the stick from the appellant’s hand and gave it to her. She further stated that the villagers, who rushed on the spot, caught hold the accused. She identified the stick. P.W.3 Chandrakala further stated that her husband had borrowed Rs.1000/from the appellant and he could repay only Rs.550/and the balance amount of Rs.450/was to be repaid. P.W.3 Chandrakala identified article no.2 blood stained paijama and article no.3 the underwear of her husband. Though, P.W.3 Chandrakala was also subjected to cross-examination and certain omissions were brought on record, the same were minor in nature. P.W.3 Chandrakala is not shaken on the material aspects of the incident witnessed by her i.e. appellant assaulting her husband with the stick, her husband receiving bleeding injuries, her son rushing on the spot, snatching the stick from the hand of the appellant etc. 12. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of these three eyewitnesses, we find that these witnesses gave true account of the incident. Their presence on the spot is natural being the family members. 12. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of these three eyewitnesses, we find that these witnesses gave true account of the incident. Their presence on the spot is natural being the family members. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that these witnesses being the family members of deceased, are the interested witnesses, we are not impressed with the submission for the reason that merely because these witnesses are the family members of deceased Dina, there is no reason to discard the versions of these witnesses, which are reliable, trustworthy and natural. We are also not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the prosecution has failed to establish the entry of the appellant in the house of Dina, in view of the ocular testimony of P.W.1 Dilip, who stated that the appellant/accused was the tenant of his uncle and the house of his uncle is in the neighborhood and this fact is supported with the spot panchanama. The version of these eyewitnesses elaborately give all the details of complicity of the appellant/accused in commission of the crime. We see no reason to disbelieve the version of these witnesses. In our opinion, these three witnesses stood firm in support of the prosecution case against the appellant. 13. The other incriminating material against the appellant is seizure of the material i.e. the stick used in the assault and bed sheet, paijama, underwear and waist thread (kaddora), which were blood stained. The report of Chemical Analyzer shows that human blood was detected on the articles namely stick, bed sheet, paijama and the group of blood on the articles was ‘A’. The clothes of appellant/accused, which were seized and referred to the Chemical Analyser, were having blood group ‘A’. These are the additional links in support of the ocular testimony of the witnesses to fortify the case of the prosecution. 14. Taking overall view of the incriminating circumstances against the appellant in the form of ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses, the additional links in the form of medical evidence and Chemical Analyser’s report, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is just and proper. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is just and proper. We see no reason to take any other view than the view taken by the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and the appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence is confirmed. The fees payable to Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, the learned counsel appointed for the appellant, is quantified at Rs.5,000/( Rupees Five thousand only). Appeal dismissed.