Judgment :- Naresh H. Patil, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.102 of 2010, convicting the Appellant Namdeo Bapurao Gund under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10th April, 2010 the husband of PW3 Parubai Gund, namely, Kisanrao had gone to field known as “Saundadicha Mala” in the morning hours at about 10.00 a.m. There were tamarind trees in the field and fruits from those trees were to be thrashed. One servant namely Katkar resident of Ruie village was engaged in that work. Radhabai, Vijubai, Reshmabai were also in the field for collecting fruits of tamarind trees. These ladies were resident of village Sakat, TqAshti. PW3 came to the field at about 11.15 a.m. The husband of Parubai was sleeping under a tamarind tree which was towards western side. The people were working around the said spot. PW3 Parubai had carried breakfast for her husband. At the relevant time the husband of PW3 was sleeping therefore she did not wake him up. PW3 Parubai thereafter started collecting fruits of tamarind tree. At that point of time the Appellant/accused Namdeo came there from western side. He assaulted the deceased with axe on his neck saying “take the land”. According to PW3 Parubai the Appellant gave second blow of axe on the person of the deceased and thereafter started running away from the western side. The Appellant was wearing blue shirt, Dhoti and a cap. PW3 Parubai saw the said accused. The incident was witnessed by other persons who were engaged in the work of cutting tamarind fruits. 3. The police reached the spot in the afternoon on receiving a telephonic information from anonymous caller that a murder had taken place at Sakat. PW8 Anant Dhanaji Rathod reached the spot at about 2.45 p.m. According to the witness, he received the call at 2.00 p.m. PW3 Parubai informed about the incident to A.P.I. Anant Rathod. The complaint of Parubai was recorded on the spot. Thumb impression of Parubai was obtained. PW8 Anant Dhanaji Rathod reached the spot at about 2.45 p.m. According to the witness, he received the call at 2.00 p.m. PW3 Parubai informed about the incident to A.P.I. Anant Rathod. The complaint of Parubai was recorded on the spot. Thumb impression of Parubai was obtained. The complaint is at Exhibit 24 of the record. The A.P.P. Anant Rathod thereafter drew spot panchnama in presence of panchas (Exhibit 20). Natural soil, blood mixed soil was seized from the spot. Bed-sheet, gunny bag and other articles were seized by the police. According to PW8 Anant Rathod the distance between scene of offence and the spot where labourers were working, was about 30 to 35 feet. 4. Inquest panchnama was drawn in presence of panchas, Exhibit 21. On 11th April, 2010 the Appellant was arrested. The clothes on the person of the Appellant were seized in presence of panchas under panchnama, which is at Exhibit 11. Recovery of axe was made at the behest of the Appellant on 15th April, 2010, which according to the Appellant was used in commission of crime. The said memorandum statement is at Exhibit 18. The HMT wrist watch of the deceased was seized under panchnama Exhibit 22. The seized articles, clothes, natural soil and blood mixed soil, bed sheet and gunny bag were sent to Chemical Analyzer. Chemical Analyzer’s report was received, thereafter charge-sheet came to be filed. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The charge was framed on 4th October, 2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge1, Beed. The prosecution examined three witnesses as eye witnesses to the incident, namely, PW3 Parubai Kisanrao Gund, PW4 Babasaheb Rangnath Gore and PW5 Asaram Baburao Katkar. 5. PW3 Parubai, wife of the deceased deposed that she reached the spot at about 11.15 a.m. At that time her husband was sleeping. She had brought food for her husband. After sometime she saw the Appellant coming from western side. She had seen the Appellant assaulting on the neck of her husband with the help of axe, thereafter Appellant ran away. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that one cannot see the scene of offence from the place of tamarind trees where workers were thrashing tamarind fruits. According to PW3 Parubai the Appellant resides in adjoining village Dahigaon. The witness admits that there was dispute between Trimbak Dagdu Shinde, Asaram Dagdu Shinde and her husband. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that one cannot see the scene of offence from the place of tamarind trees where workers were thrashing tamarind fruits. According to PW3 Parubai the Appellant resides in adjoining village Dahigaon. The witness admits that there was dispute between Trimbak Dagdu Shinde, Asaram Dagdu Shinde and her husband. There was dispute between her husband and some other persons. The witness admits that crop of Maka and grass were grown upto head height near the spot. 6. PW4 Babasaheb Gore deposed that after hearing cries of children, he came down from the branch of tree. He saw the neck of deceased was cut. Somebody was running away. PW3 Parubai told that person running away was her brother in law, namely, Namdeo Gund. According to the witness, the said person was wearing blue shirt, dhoti and cap. Asaram Katkar asked that person to stop but Namdeo showed him axe and asked him to keep quiet. The witness saw Namdeo going towards western side. In the cross-examination the witness stated that they were working on the same tree from morning to noon time. He was not knowing the accused prior to the incident and till the witness deposed he did not meet the said accused. Material omission is recorded in the evidence of this witness. The witness never stated before the police that Kisan Gund was sleeping at a distance of 30 to 35 feet on western side. The witness claims to have stated before police that PW3 Parubai came near the tree where the witness was working and Asaram Katkar asked the accused to stop and accused showed him axe. The said statement was not stated before the police. 7. PW5 is Asaram Katkar. He deposed that after hearing cries his attention was diverted towards the spot. He went near the spot and saw that axe blow was given on the neck of the deceased and one person was running towards western side. He asked the said person to stop but he ran away asking the witness to keep quiet. He was wearing Nehru shirt and Dhoti. Both these witnesses identified the accused in the Court. The witness admitted that his eye sight is weak. He asked the said person to stop but he ran away asking the witness to keep quiet. He was wearing Nehru shirt and Dhoti. Both these witnesses identified the accused in the Court. The witness admitted that his eye sight is weak. In the cross examination of this witness material omission is recorded to the effect that he stated before police that ladies informed him that Kisan was assaulted by the accused and he came to know that brother of deceased killed him. But the said statement is not appearing in the statement recorded by the police. 8. PW1 Bapu Kumat is panch of seizure of clothes of accused and axe. In the cross-examination the witness stated that clothes were accordingly shown to him and police told him that the clothes were of accused. In respect of the recovery of axe, the witness deposed before the Court that the axe was recovered at the behest of the accused. 9. The PW2 Bhagchand Bhingardive is panch of inquest panchnama, spot panchnama and recovery of clothes of the deceased. The witness deposed that he saw injury on the neck of the deceased. It was a deep injury. He did not see any other injury. The witness had also referred to one black belt wrist watch which was of HMT make. He had proved the contents of the panchnama. 10. PW6 is Dr. Govardhan Raghunath Mahindrakar who performed the autopsy on the dead body. Following injuries were noted by the medical officer: (1) Incised wound 3 x 1 x ½ c.m. On right side of chin, (2) Very deep incised would over right half side of neck, length 10 c.m. x breadth 5 c.m. and depth 5 c.m. (3) Major arteries i.e. Right carotid artery, Right Jugular vein, Trochea, all these structures cut. Wound extend deeply upto Oesophour as a result thyroid gland is pulled down. Massive Haemorrhage seen. 11. According to medical officer, injuries No.1 and 2 were external injuries and injury No.3 was internal injury. The cause of death was “large incised wound on right side of neck causing complete cutting of right carotid artery, right jugular vein Trachea, Right sides vagus nerve and other vital structures in neck.” 12. Cross-examination of this witness is material for the case. The witness deposed that he carried out postmortem from 4.40 p.m. to 5.40 p.m. Dead person was averagely built. Cross-examination of this witness is material for the case. The witness deposed that he carried out postmortem from 4.40 p.m. to 5.40 p.m. Dead person was averagely built. Rigor mortis process was completed. According to the medical officer the rigor mortis covers whole body after 8 hours to 12 hours. According to the medical officer injuries No.1 and 2 may have been caused by separate weapons. Food was found in small intestine which was partially digested. Two hours time requires for digestion. 13. The defence examined defence witness Dattu Gore mainly in respect of the distance between tamarind tree and the place where deceased was sleeping, which according to the witness is 500 feet. The said witness had received summons as prosecution witness. His statement was not recorded by the police. 14. The Chemical Analyzer’s report reveals that blood which was detected on earth was human blood. The sample of blood of accused was not sent for grouping. The clothes of deceased were stained with blood group “A” whereas clothes of accused were stained with blood group “B”. The Chemical Analyzer’s report is at Exhibit 37. The postmortem report is at Exhibit 31. 15. Shri. Jadhav, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that though the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, evidence of witness Nos.4 and 5 does not help the prosecution at all. They have not seen the incident taking place. They claimed to have seen the person running away from the spot who was said to be Appellant. There are material omissions in the evidence of both these witnesses. They have falsely claimed to have been identified the Appellant in the Court. The prosecution case is solely based on the acceptance of testimony of PW3 Parubai, who is highly interested witness being wife of the deceased. The counsel submits that even this witness has made a categorical statement that from the spot where she and other persons were involved in thrashing tamarind fruits, the spot of incident where the deceased was attacked, is not visible. This itself establishes that she had not seen the incident taking place neither she had seen the Appellant running away from the spot. None of the persons from the spot had tried to catch hold the Appellant. Their conduct is unreasonable and not convincing. The counsel submits that Chemical Analyzer’s report does not help the prosecution. This itself establishes that she had not seen the incident taking place neither she had seen the Appellant running away from the spot. None of the persons from the spot had tried to catch hold the Appellant. Their conduct is unreasonable and not convincing. The counsel submits that Chemical Analyzer’s report does not help the prosecution. The panchnamas does not inspire confidence in the prosecution case. It was submitted that according to the medical evidence the death must not have been occurred between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. The death must have been occurred at about 8.00 a.m. or 9.00 a.m. The panchnama is ante time. The investigation commenced prior to registration of crime which is serious irregularity in conducting the investigation. The medical evidence is contrary to the evidence of eye witnesses. The learned counsel submits that evidence of eye witness PW3 Parubai being sole eye witness, is required to be considered with great caution. Her evidence has to be of sterling quality, which according to the counsel is not satisfactory. The counsel submits that even if the case is considered on the basis of circumstances, the Appellant deserves to be granted benefit of doubt as chain of circumstances is not complete. 16. The learned counsel for the Appellant, in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: (i) Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra 1978 4 Supreme Court Cases, 371, (ii) Chhakki, Ramnath vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Laws (MPH)1990941, (iii) Indradeo Rai and others etc. vs. State of Bihar, 1992 CRI. L.J. 4005. 17. Shri. Kaldate, the learned A.P.P. submits that evidence of PW3 Parubai is reliable. There was no motive for PW3 Parubai to involve the Appellant falsely in the commission of crime. PW3 Parubai was natural witness at the spot. Just because the Appellant was not caught hold while he was running, the prosecution case cannot be doubted. The witnesses were afraid of assailant as he was holding dangerous weapon in his hand. PW3 was aged lady of 75 years. She was not expected to run after the Appellant. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case. The investigating officer had promptly reached the spot, carried out the investigation, arrested the accused. 18. We have perused the evidence on record, the original record, medical evidence, Chemical Analyzer’s report. PW3 was aged lady of 75 years. She was not expected to run after the Appellant. The medical evidence supports the prosecution case. The investigating officer had promptly reached the spot, carried out the investigation, arrested the accused. 18. We have perused the evidence on record, the original record, medical evidence, Chemical Analyzer’s report. We find that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 does not inspire confidence to accept their version as eye witnesses to the incident to the extent that they had seen the Appellant running away to the western side after committing assault on the person of the deceased. Both the witnesses stated that they had identified the Appellant for the first time in the Court. There are material omissions in their evidence. Though they were young persons, they did not bother to make any slightest effort to run after the Appellant, chase him or try to catch hold of him with the help of others. Their conduct demonstrates that they must not have seen the Appellant running away from the spot. 19. The material witness which could be termed as sole eye witness to the incident according to the prosecution, could be PW3 Parubai, wife of the deceased. She had made clear statement that spot of incident was not visible from the spot where she was working along with other female and male workers. The workers were thrashing tamarind fruits. Some of them were on the branches of the trees. The sole eye witness is not confident about the visibility of the spot of incident. The location of the spot brought on record does not inspire confidence that it must be visible from the place where PW3 was working. PW3 was aged lady of 75 years and Appellant was of 76 years old, even if we consider the Appellant to be able bodied person, it would not have been difficult for the persons gathered there to chase the Appellant or to catch hold of him or to make some effort so that the Appellant could have been caught there and there itself. But we do not find fault with the prosecution on this ground as the explanation has been given by the prosecution that PW3 being old lady was afraid of the Appellant and even other workers may not have wanted to get involved in the private dispute of distribution of land between the parties. 20. But we do not find fault with the prosecution on this ground as the explanation has been given by the prosecution that PW3 being old lady was afraid of the Appellant and even other workers may not have wanted to get involved in the private dispute of distribution of land between the parties. 20. The medical evidence of formation of rigor mortis does not support the time of assault and time of death of the deceased. Considering the medical evidence the incident must have taken place in the morning hours between 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. as food particles were found in the small intestine. The defence did not bring on record satisfactorily as to at what point of time the deceased had consumed the food. The Chemical Analyzer’s report does not help the prosecution in any way. The Appellant was available to the prosecution, he was arrested by police, but no efforts were made to send his blood for grouping. 21. Even though the evidence of PW3 Parubai is not taken into consideration, the circumstances brought on record do not conclusively establish the guilt of the Appellant. The chain of circumstances is not complete, so benefit of doubt will have to be given to the Appellant. Though the investigating officer claims to have recorded complaint of PW3 Parubai, drew panchnama before registering the offence, in the facts of the case we are not inclined to observe that the investigating officer committed serious irregularities or breach in commencing the investigation. 22. Considering the evidence of PW3 Parubai in its entirety, we do not find that it satisfies the requirement of her evidence being of sterling quality. The evidence of PW3 does not inspire full confidence of the Court. It would not be safe to convict the Appellant and sentence him for life on the testimony of PW3 Parubai. 23. We have perused the reasoning adopted by the trial Court in convicting and sentencing the Appellant. We have noticed that the trial Court has not marshalled the evidence and had not provided sufficient reasoning for convicting and sentencing the Appellant. In such case of serious nature, it is necessary for the trial Court to address relevant issues, marshal the evidence and provide reasoning which exhibits total application of mind of the trial Court to the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record. 24. In such case of serious nature, it is necessary for the trial Court to address relevant issues, marshal the evidence and provide reasoning which exhibits total application of mind of the trial Court to the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record. 24. For the reasons stated above we pass following order: 1) The Criminal Appeal No.332 of 2011 is allowed. 2) The Judgment and order dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.102 of 2010, convicting the Appellant Namdeo Bapurao Gund under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, is quashed and set aside. 3) The Appellant is acquitted of all the offences with which he was charged and convicted. 4) The Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 5) The fine amount if paid, be refunded to the Appellant.