JUDGMENT (PER A.S. GADKARI, J.) : The Appellant / original accused has preferred the present Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 12th March 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, District Raigad in Sessions case No.18 of 2011 thereby convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The Trial Court has directed that the punishment awarded to the Appellant on both the counts to run concurrently. The Appellant by the present Appeal has questioned the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. The facts which are enumerated from the record can briefly be stated thus : i) P.W.4 – Uday Desai was attached to Goregaon Police Station as Police Sub-Inspector. That on 14th January 2011 P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav, came to the police station and gave information regarding the accidental death of Janabai. P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav was the brother of deceased Janabai. P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai thereafter recorded the occurrence report, took the thumb impression of P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav and the same was registered as ADR No.2 of 2011. P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai thereafter started enquiry into the said ADR No.2 of 2011. P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai visited the spot and noticed that the dead body of Janabai was lying in the house. He prepared inquest panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. The said inquest panchanama is at Exhibit 18. ii) P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai referred the dead body for postmortem examination to ascertain the cause of death. He then prepared the spot panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, which is at Exhibit 10. The clothes of the deceased were seized under panchanama which is at Exhibit 24. The said seized clothes of the deceased were then deposited with the concerned clerk and P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai obtained receipt of the same. The said receipt is at Exhibit 25. The clothes of the deceased were seized under panchanama which is at Exhibit 24. The said seized clothes of the deceased were then deposited with the concerned clerk and P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai obtained receipt of the same. The said receipt is at Exhibit 25. iii) During the course of investigation, P.W.4 – Uday Desai recorded the statements of witnesses. On 16th January 2011 P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav i.e. the brother of deceased Janabai, disclosed to the police that the Appellant had killed the deceased. The statement P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav came to be recorded as the First Information Report which is at Exhibit 14. The Appellant came to be arrested by effecting the panchanama which is at Exhibit 26. The clothes of the Appellant were also seized under the panchanama which were produced by his mother. The said panchanama of seizure of clothes of the Appellant is at Exhibit 19. After receipt of the Chemical Analyser's reports which are at Exhibits 30 to 33, Police Inspector Yadav submitted chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangaon. 3. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangaon committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, Mangaon, District Raigad as the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court framed a charge below Exhibit 5 against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was read over to the Appellant and was explained to him in Marathi / vernacular language. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellant was of total denial and false implication. The Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case was pleased to convict the Appellant as stated herein above. 4. We have heard Mrs. Farhana Shah, learned advocate appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee for the Appellant and Smt. V.R. Bhonsale, learned APP for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted before us that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is of interested witnesses and the same cannot be relied upon. She further submitted that if the evidence of interested witnesses is excluded, then there is no evidence at all on record and the Appellant therefore is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted before us that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is of interested witnesses and the same cannot be relied upon. She further submitted that if the evidence of interested witnesses is excluded, then there is no evidence at all on record and the Appellant therefore is entitled for acquittal. Per contra, learned APP Smt. Bhonsale submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is reliable and trustworthy and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the charges framed against him. 5. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in brief. 6. P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav, who is the brother of deceased Janabai, has stated in his testimony that deceased Janabai @ Vaishali was his sister. Her marriage was solemnized with the Appellant prior to six years. That the Appellant was staying with Janabai, mother of the Appellant and grandmother Mangalabai. That the Appellant used to pick up quarrel with Janabai. That on 14th January 2014 in the morning the Appellant came to him and disclosed that Janabai was dead. Hence, P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav went to the house of the Appellant to see Janabai and saw her dead body. P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav saw print on the neck of Janabai and also blood was oozing from her mouth. He noticed that her maxi was burnt. He thereafter lodged a report with the police which was treated as ADR and the same is at Exhibit 13. That his grandmother viz. Mangalabai (P.W.2) who was residing with the Appellant disclosed to him that on 13th January 2011 there was a quarrel between Janabai and the Appellant on account of preparation of food. Due to the quarrel the mother-in-law Kantabai i.e. the mother of the Appellant left the house. The Appellant attempted to set Janabai on fire but he could not succeed. That the Appellant tried to hang Janabai to the ceiling fan. He could not succeed in it too. The Appellant thereafter made Janabai to lie on the floor and pressed her neck. After knowing these additional facts, P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav again lodged a complaint with the police narrating the said facts. The said complaint is at Exhibit 14. That the Appellant tried to hang Janabai to the ceiling fan. He could not succeed in it too. The Appellant thereafter made Janabai to lie on the floor and pressed her neck. After knowing these additional facts, P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav again lodged a complaint with the police narrating the said facts. The said complaint is at Exhibit 14. This witness was cross examined at length by the Appellant. In his cross examination an admission which was detrimental to the interest of the Appellant has been extracted. P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav has admitted in the cross-examination that he was staying at a distance of 5 minutes walk from the house of the Appellant and it is true that the Appellant, his deceased sister Janabai, Kantabai and Mangalabai (P.W.2) were residing together. As stated earlier, apart from the aforesaid admission, no other material which is useful to the Appellant or any omission or any other admission which would discredit the testimony of P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav has been elicited in the cross-examination. 7. P.W.2 – Mangala Sanpeti is the grandmother of deceased Janabai. P.W.2 – Mangalabai in her testimony has stated that on the day of incident, there were four persons in the house i.e. the Appellant, Janabai, Mangalabai herself and the mother of the Appellant viz. Kantabai. That at about 1 a.m. Janabai started cooking the food and on that count there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. Kantabai left the house in the meanwhile. The Appellant thereafter started assaulting Janabai and hence, P.W.2 – Mangalabai was about to leave the house. The Appellant prevented P.W.2 – Mangalabai from going out of the house. The Appellant pushed Janabai towards the country made earthen stove (chulha) and at that time the gown of Janabai was burnt. As the Appellant did not succeed at that time, the Appellant attempted to hang Janabai to the ceiling fan, but could not succeed in the same. Then the Appellant sat on the stomach of Janabai and pressed her neck. That both the children were with P.W.2- Mangalabai and she could not make any attempt to separate the Appellant. The cross-examination of this witness did not yield any success to the Appellant, to shake the credibility of this eyewitness. In the cross-examination nothing is brought on record which would create doubt about the cogent and trustworthy testimony of this witness. 8. The cross-examination of this witness did not yield any success to the Appellant, to shake the credibility of this eyewitness. In the cross-examination nothing is brought on record which would create doubt about the cogent and trustworthy testimony of this witness. 8. P.W.3 – Parshuram Jadhav is the panch witness to the inquest panchanama of the dead body of deceased Janabai and also to the spot panchanama. P.W.3 – Parshuram Jadhav in his evidence has proved the inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and seizure panchanama of the clothes (i.e. shirt and trouser) of the Appellant which are at Exhibits 18, 10 and 19 respectively. In the cross-examination, apart from giving general suggestions to this witness at the hands of the Appellant nothing contrary to the evidence led by this witness has been elicited. 9. P.W.4 – PSI Uday Desai is the Investigating Officer. The facts about lodging of ADR No.2 of 2011 and subsequently Crime No.5 of 2011 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the various steps taken by this witness have already been narrated in the foregoing paragraph Nos.2(i) to (iii). And for the sake of brevity the repetition of the same is avoided here. In the cross-examination nothing has been brought on record by the Appellant which would shake the credibility of this witness. 10. P.W.5 is Dr. Nilesh Pawar. This witness in his testimony has stated that on 14th January 2011 he was attached to Mangaon Hospital. That dead body of Pinki Vikas Pawar was brought to the hospital for autopsy along with inquest and letter. During the course of postmortem examination he noticed the injuries which have been mentioned in column No.17 of the postmortem report. The said injuries were : “1) Obliquely directed multiple bruises one below other, and opposite side. 2) Bruises present on front of neck and sides on neck and under chin. 3) Bruises are bluish red in colour directed upward and backward. 4) On front of neck, 2 bruises were present of the size 10x5 cm and 8x5 cm. respectively one below other. On right side of neck multiple bruises were present of 10x3 cm and 8x2 cm and 6x2 cm. On left side of the neck, multiple bruises were present of the size 12x3 cm, 8x3 cm and 9x3 cm 5x2 cm respectively. respectively one below other. On right side of neck multiple bruises were present of 10x3 cm and 8x2 cm and 6x2 cm. On left side of the neck, multiple bruises were present of the size 12x3 cm, 8x3 cm and 9x3 cm 5x2 cm respectively. The measurements are in respect of injury 1 to 4.” He noticed that the age of the injuries was within 24 hours and the bruises were ante mortem. He noticed the following internal injuries : “Internal injury – sub cutaneous tissues of neck shows extravasation of blood, fracture of laryngeal cartilage sub mucosal hemorrhage of the larynx present. Fracture of hyoid bone in the region of grater corneal. Bruising at the end of base of tongue present. Rupture of carotid artery.” 11. P.W.5 – Dr. Nilesh Pawar therefore gave opinion about the probable cause of death of deceased Janabai is “asphyxia due to throttling”. P.W.5 – Dr. Nilesh Pawar has further opined that if a person sitting on body lying on the ground, pressing neck with force, the injuries noticed by him are possible. In the cross-examination except putting the general suggestions, nothing contrary has been brought on record which would doubt about the trustworthiness of this witness at the hands of the Appellant. 12. Thus, after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case, it is clear that the present case is based on the ocular evidence of P.W.2 – Mangalabai who is the grandmother of Janabai and who was at the relevant time of the incident in the house of the Appellant and deceased Janabai. Her presence at the time of incident has been corroborated by P.W.1 – Nitin Jadhav. The Appellant in the lengthy cross-examination could not shake the trustworthiness of the evidence of this witness. As stated herein above, P.W.2 – Mangalabai has in detail narrated about the immediate preceding two attempts made on the life of Janabai by the Appellant and subsequently about his sitting on the body of Janabai and pressing her neck with force. The evidence adduced by P.W.2 – Mangalabai has been fully corroborated by P.W.5 – Dr. Nilesh Pawar. We find no reason at all to disbelieve the reliability, credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of P.W.2 – Mangalabai as corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 – Dr. Nilesh Pawar. The evidence adduced by P.W.2 – Mangalabai has been fully corroborated by P.W.5 – Dr. Nilesh Pawar. We find no reason at all to disbelieve the reliability, credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of P.W.2 – Mangalabai as corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 – Dr. Nilesh Pawar. It is also to be noted that the Appellant had prevented Mangalabai (P.W.2) from leaving the house at the time of commission of the offence by intimidating her. Hence, the Appellant has also committed the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. After scrutinizing the entire evidence available on record minutely, we have no doubt in our mind that the Appellant has committed the present crime i.e. the Appellant has caused the death of Janabai by pressing her neck and therefore has committed the offence as contemplated under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has also been proved against the Appellant. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the Appellant by its judgment and order dated 12th March 2012. Hence, we dismiss the present Appeal. 14. Since the Appellant is in jail, the registry is hereby directed to communicate a copy of this order to him. Before parting with this judgment, we must record our appreciation for Advocate Mrs. Farhana Shah, who was appointed by the Legal Services Committee to represent the Appellant in this Appeal. We quantify total legal fees to be paid to her in this Appeal by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs.5,000/-