JUDGMENT V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant original accused against the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the learned I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 184 of 2005. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/i. d. R.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (i) Deceased Kunda, daughter of P.W. 1 Yeshwant Kharat and P.W. 2 Sunita Kharat was married to appellant 3 years prior to the incident. The appellant used to sell snacks on the handcart. While doing his business a quarrel took place between appellant and the police. Hence the appellant was put behind bars for some time. During that period Kunda was residing with her parents. After returning from the jail, the appellant came to the house of P.W. 1 Yeshwant and he resided in Yeshwant's house for 4 to 5 days. At that time, appellant suspected character of his wife Kunda. The appellant used to assault and abuse Kunda. On the day of incident at about 10 p.m. P.W. 1 Yeshwant, his wife P.W. 2 Sunita and his daughter deceased Kunda were taking dinner. The appellant came there. P.W. 1 Yeshwant invited the appellant to have dinner which the appellant refused. The appellant called his wife Kunda out of the house. Hence, Kunda went out of the house. On hearing shouts P.W. 1 Yeshwant and his wife P.W. 2 Sunita came out of the house. They saw the appellant assaulting Kunda by wooden rod. The appellant gave blows of wooden rod on the head and on her face. This incident was seen by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in the electric light of the adjacent building. P.W. 1 took his daughter Kunda to the hospital. Doctor on examination declared her dead. Then P.W. 1 Yeshwant went to the police station and lodged his FIR Exh. 8. Thereafter investigation commenced. (ii) The dead body of Kunda was sent for post mortem. P.W. 7 Dr. Ramkrishna Bhusale conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kunda. He noticed following injuries : (1) CLW over left parieto occipital region14 x 6 cm. bone deep star shaped reddish; (2) CLA over medial end of right eyebrow 2 cm. 8. Thereafter investigation commenced. (ii) The dead body of Kunda was sent for post mortem. P.W. 7 Dr. Ramkrishna Bhusale conducted post mortem on the dead body of Kunda. He noticed following injuries : (1) CLW over left parieto occipital region14 x 6 cm. bone deep star shaped reddish; (2) CLA over medial end of right eyebrow 2 cm. bone deep and of right eyebrow 2.5 cm bone deep, reddish; (3) Two CLW at top of nose 2 cm and 1.5 cm. each with nosal bone fracture reddish; (4) CLW just below lower lip and horizontal bone deep reddish; (5) Two CLW at chin under surface 2 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep, reddish; (6) Contusion over right cheek below and lateral to right eye 2 x 3 cm reddish colour; (7) Fracture and amputation of distal plalanx of right index finger; (8) Upper and lower incisers loosen; (9) Mandible fracture in middle; (10) Both maxilla fracture; (11) Nasal bone fracture According to the Doctor all the above injuries are antemortem. On internal examination the Doctor found following injuries : (1) Haemotoma over left frontal lateral aspect 3 x 4 cm. reddish and over left parieto occipital region 15 x 8 cm; (2) Left frontal bone, roof of left orbit fractured and displaced; (3) Brain edematous both frontal lobe contusion present for 3 x 3 cm. each. In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased died due to head injuries due to assault with multiple injuries on head and face. All the injuries are fresh and sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries can be possible by the wooden rod. (iii) The appellant came to be arrested. During the investigation bloodstained clothes which were worn by the appellant at the time of incident came to be recovered vide panchanama Exh. 24. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge came to be framed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge came to be framed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused/appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in Para 1 above. Hence, this Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his wife Kunda on the head with a wooden stick and caused her death. 5. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of P.W. 1 Yeshwant and P.W. 2 Sunita who are the eyewitnesses in the present case. P.W. 1 Yeshwant is father of Kunda and is first informant in the present case. Yeshwant had stated that he had two sons and one daughter i.e. Kunda. Kunda was married to the appellant about 3 years prior to the incident. He was selling snacks on the handcart. While doing his business a quarrel took place between appellant and the police. Hence the appellant was put behind bars for sometime. During that period Kunda was residing with her parents. After returning from the jail, the appellant came to the house of P.W. 1 Yeshwant and he resided in his house for 4 to 5 days. At that time, appellant suspected character of his wife Kunda. Appellant used to assault and abuse Kunda. On the day of incident at about 10 p.m. P.W. 1 Yeshwant, his wife P.W. 2 Sunita and his daughter deceased Kunda were taking dinner. The appellant came there. P.W. 1 Yeshwant invited the appellant to have dinner which the appellant refused. The appellant called his wife Kunda out of the house. Hence, Kunda went out of the house. On hearing shouts P.W. 1 Yeshwant and his wife P.W. 2 Sunita came out of the house. They saw the appellant assaulting Kunda by wooden rod. The appellant came there. P.W. 1 Yeshwant invited the appellant to have dinner which the appellant refused. The appellant called his wife Kunda out of the house. Hence, Kunda went out of the house. On hearing shouts P.W. 1 Yeshwant and his wife P.W. 2 Sunita came out of the house. They saw the appellant assaulting Kunda by wooden rod. The appellant gave blows of wooden rod on the head and on her face. This incident was seen by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in the electric light of the adjacent building. P.W. 1 took his daughter Kunda to the hospital. Doctor on examination declared her dead. Evidence of P.W. 2 Sunita is on similar line as that of P.W. 1 Yeshwant. Though the incident occurred outside the house P.W. 1 Yeshwant has clearly stated that there was electric light from the adjacent building and he has seen the incident in the electric light. Hence there was sufficient light for the two eye witnesses to identify the appellant. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of both these witnesses so as to disbelieve their testimony. 6. In addition to the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the prosecution is also relying on the circumstance of recovery of blood stained clothes which were on the body of the appellant at the time of the incident. P.W. 8 panch witness Vikas Ombare has deposed on this aspect. The panchanama is at Exh. 24. Panch witness Ombare has stated that the appellant made a statement that he had concealed the clothes in a bungalow situated in Dhankavadi area and he was willing to produce the same. Then the appellant led them towards a tin shed near one bungalow situated in Dhankavadi locality. The appellant bent the door and produced one black colour bag having clothes. There was one pant and one shirt in the bag i.e. articles 10 and 11. These clothes were sent to CA and as per the CA report Exh. 31/1 the clothes were found to have blood stains of “B” group. The clothes of the deceased were also soaked with blood of “B” group. This shows that the blood group of deceased was found on the clothes of the accused. It may be stated that the weapon i.e. wooden stick was found on the spot. This stick was also found having stains of blood of “B” group. 7. The clothes of the deceased were also soaked with blood of “B” group. This shows that the blood group of deceased was found on the clothes of the accused. It may be stated that the weapon i.e. wooden stick was found on the spot. This stick was also found having stains of blood of “B” group. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the evidence of both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 cannot be believed because P.W. 1 Yeshwant has stated that on the day of the incident he had seen the accused first time at 6 p.m. She submitted that the marriage of Kunda and the appellant was a love marriage and the fact that Yeshwant's daughter Kunda had married appellant was not liked by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. Hence they did not see the appellant till the day of the incident. We do not agree with this contention because the evidence on record clearly shows that the accused had earlier visited the house of P.W. 1 Yeshwant and P.W. 2 Sunita. The evidence of P.W. 1 is quite categorical that after the appellant was released from jail, the appellant resided in his house for 4 to 5 days. Thus it cannot be said that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had not seen the appellant prior to the day of the incident. 8. Thereafter Ms. Dandekar submitted that there was no sufficient light on the spot of incident. Hence, it was not possible Talwalkar 9/11 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2013 16:50:08 ::: Bombay High Court 10 apeal1350.06.sxw for the two witnesses to notice the identity of the assailant. In support of this contention, she placed reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 wherein he has stated that he was residing in one room in a bungalow, there was no electricity facility in the complete bungalow. Thus Ms. Dandekar submitted that there was no sufficient light on the spot to identify the assailant. As far as this contention is concerned, it is noticed that P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has further stated that there was electricity facility in his room and in front of the bungalow. This has been stated by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination. Moreover, in his examination in chief he has stated that he had seen the incident in the electric light from the adjacent building. This has been stated by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination. Moreover, in his examination in chief he has stated that he had seen the incident in the electric light from the adjacent building. This shows that there was sufficient light on the spot to observe the identity of the assailant. It is also to be borne in mind that the appellant is son-in-law of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and he was verywell known to these two witnesses. Thus we find no merit in this contention as these witnesses can identify him even in dim light. 9. On going through the record we find that there is sufficient evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime. Hence, we find no merit in the Appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 10. Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellant is lodged and to the appellant original accused. Writ of order be expedited. 11. At this stage, we must record our appreciation for Smt. Rohini M. Dandekar, Advocate appointed from High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay to represent the appellant. We found that she had meticulously prepared the matter and she has very ably argued the matter. We quantify legal fees to be paid to her by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs. 2500/. The said fees be paid to Advocate Smt. Rohini M. Dandekar within three months from today.