JUDGMENT: Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J. The Appellant original-Accused has directed this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 30th June, 2004, passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.447 of 2003. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: "The complainant P.W.No.1 Anil Indalkar was working as welder in Rajpal Garage. This Garage was situated at Bibavewadi, Pune. P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar M. Panchal was also working as a welder in the said Garage. The deceased Jagannath Taide was working as a watchman in the Rajpal Garage. The Appellant was working as a cleaner in the Garage. Some days prior to the incident, the Appellant had come to the Garage after consuming liquor. The watchman i.e. the deceased Jagannath warned him not to come to the Garage after consuming liquor. On that ground, there was quarrel between them. On 14th September, 2003, at about 10.30 p.m., P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar along with other drivers and cleaners were sleeping in the Garage. At that time, deceased Jagannath was on duty as a watchman. Jagannath was sitting on a chair. P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar and others heard shouts and woke up. They saw the Appellant running away from the watchman Jagannath and the Appellant was holding a wooden plank in his hand. P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar saw that Jagannath had bleeding injury on his head. P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar immediately informed P.W. No.1 Anil Indalkar on phone. Then Jagannath was taken to the hospital. At about 1.45 a.m., doctor declared Jagannath to be dead. The First Information Report (FIR) of P.W. No.1 Anil Indalkar came to be recorded. Thereafter investigation commenced. The dead body of Jagannath was sent for postmortem. P.W.No.5 Dr. Milind conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Jagannath. He find the following external injuries : 1) Horizontal lacerated wounds lateral angle of left eyebrow 1x0.25" bone deep. 2) Horizontal split lacerations 0.75" behind left ear at the level of vertex 1.5x0.25" bone deep. 3) Oblique split laceration rt. occipital region 2"rt. lateral to vertex 2.5.x0.25" bone deep. 4) Inverted U shaped abrasion over bridge of nose, 1" long. 5) Linear horizontal abrasion, 1/2" below rt. eye 2" long with black eye. 2) Horizontal split lacerations 0.75" behind left ear at the level of vertex 1.5x0.25" bone deep. 3) Oblique split laceration rt. occipital region 2"rt. lateral to vertex 2.5.x0.25" bone deep. 4) Inverted U shaped abrasion over bridge of nose, 1" long. 5) Linear horizontal abrasion, 1/2" below rt. eye 2" long with black eye. 6) Fracture of nasal bones at bridge of nose. According to the Dr. Milind, the above injuries were antemortem and recent. 2. On internal examination, he noticed. 1) Hematoma under scalp left. supra orbital region 2x1.5" corresponding to ext. injury No.1. 2) Hematoma left temporoparteal region 3x2" corresponding to external injury No.2. 3) Hematoma rt. occipital region 4x2" corresponding to external injury No.3. 4) Crack fracture, rt. occipital bone 2.5" long corresponding to external injury No.3. 5) Fracture roof of lt. orbit 2" long corresponding to external injury No.1. 6) Fracture of body of sphenoid and left wing of sphenoid corresponding to ext. injury Nos.1, 2 and 3. 7) sub dural heemorrhage all over brain surface and base. 8) Sub arachnod haemorrhage with contusion of rt. frontal lobe 2x1" left frontal lobe 2x1, rt. occipital lobe 3x1.5", rt. temporol lobe 2x1", rt. Parietal lobe 2x1.5". According to Dr. Milind, all the above mentioned injuries were corresponding to external injury Nos.1, 2 and 3. External injury Nos.1 to 3 and corresponding internal injuries were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course of nature. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to head injury." 3. The Appellant came to be arrested on 15th September, 2003. In the course of investigation, the wooden plank which was used for assaulting Jagannath came to be recovered at the instance of the Appellant under panchamana Exhibit-16. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 4. Charge came to be framed against the Appellant -original accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). He pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as stated in paragraph No.1 above, hence this Appeal. 5. We have heard Mrs. Jakhade, the learned Advocate appointed for the Appellant and Mrs. Gajare-Dhumal, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent -State. We have perused the evidence in this case. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as stated in paragraph No.1 above, hence this Appeal. 5. We have heard Mrs. Jakhade, the learned Advocate appointed for the Appellant and Mrs. Gajare-Dhumal, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent -State. We have perused the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, we are of the opinion for the reasons mentioned herein below there is no merit in this Appeal. 6. There is no eye witness in the present case. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar. Dyaneshwar was working as a welder in Rajpal Garage. He used to sleep in the Garage itself. On the day of the incident, he himself, other drivers and cleaners were sleeping in the garage. At about 10.30 p.m., he heard shouts and woke up. He saw the Appellant-accused Anil was running away from the watchman Jagannath and the Appellant was holding a wooden plank in his hand. Watchman Jagannath had bleeding injuries. He immediately informed P. W. No.1 Anil Indalkar on telephone. Thereafter, Jagannath was taken to the hospital. Thus, the statement of this witness shows that at the time of the incident, the Appellant was seen running away from the watchman with a wooden plank in his hand and Jagannath had bleeding injuries on his head. This witness i.e. P. W. No.2 Dyaneshwar has also brought out the motive for the incident. He has stated that some days prior to the incident, the Appellant had come to the Garage after consuming liquor. The watchman i.e. the deceased Jagannath warned the Appellant not to come to the Garage after consuming liquor. On that ground, there was quarrel between them. 7. The evidence of P.W.No.1 Anil Indalkar supports the evidence of P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar to some extent. He has stated that he was working as a welder in Rajpal Garage. P.W. No.2 Dyaneshwar was also working as a welder in the Rajpal Garage and Appellant was working as a cleaner in the Garage. On that ground, there was quarrel between them. 7. The evidence of P.W.No.1 Anil Indalkar supports the evidence of P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar to some extent. He has stated that he was working as a welder in Rajpal Garage. P.W. No.2 Dyaneshwar was also working as a welder in the Rajpal Garage and Appellant was working as a cleaner in the Garage. He further stated that the deceased Jagannath was working as a watchman in the Garage and his duty hours were from 7.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. He has stated that on the date of incident at about 11.55 p.m., he was informed on phone by P.W.No.2 Dyaneshwar that Appellant-accused Anil had inflicted blow on the head of watchman Jagannath and, thereafter, the Appellant ran away. P.W.No.1 Anil reached the Garage, thereafter, he sent the watchman Jagannath to the hospital. He followed on his motorcycle. On reaching the hospital at about 1.45 a.m, Doctor examined Jagannath Taide and declared that he was dead. Thereafter, P.W. No.1 Anil Indalkar lodged the First Information Report (FIR). Thus, the evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of P.W. No.2 Dyaneshwar. 8. In addition to the evidence of these two witnesses stated above, the prosecution is also relying on the evidence of recovery of wooden plank at the instance of the Appellant. P.W.No.3 Ganesh Gaikwad is the panch witness who has deposed about this fact. He has stated that a blood stained wooden plank came to be recovered at the instance of the Appellant. This plank was sent to the C.A. and as per the C.A. report Exhibit-8, wooden plank was found to be stained with human blood of "A" Group. The clothes of the deceased which were seized after his death were also sent to the C.A. The clothes of the deceased were also found to have blood of "A" Group. The blood sample of Jagannath was taken in a bottle and sent to the C.A. His blood was found to be "A" Group. Thus finding of "A" blood Group on the wooden plank which was recovered at the instance of the Appellant is an additional incriminating circumstance which goes against the accused. 9. On minutely going through the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime, hence, we find no merit in the Appeal, Appeal is dismissed. 10. 9. On minutely going through the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to connect the Appellant with the crime, hence, we find no merit in the Appeal, Appeal is dismissed. 10. Office to communicate this order to the Appellant who is in jail.