Judgment : A. R. JOSHI, J. Heard the rival submissions at length on this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant sole accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2008 dated 5th April, 2010. 2. The present appellant-accused was convicted by the Extra Joint Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik for the offence punishable under section 302 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 15 days. Both substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. By the same judgment and order, the appellant-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code. It is a factual position that since the date of arrest i.e. on the date of the incident itself i.e. from the 2nd October, 2007, the appellant-accused was in custody till the Sessions Case No. 16 of 2008 was concluded. Thereafter also till date, the appellant-accused is in custody. He has been represented by appointed advocate Ms. Sarojini Upadhyay. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell, is as under : Infact, the circumstances in the present matter are very peculiar and the present appellant-accused is the real son of the victim. Infact, the appellant-accused also assaulted his mother on the night of the incident of 2nd October, 2007. Victim had agricultural land in his name and he has two sons including the present appellant-accused being elder son and P.W. No. 2 one Shivaji being the younger son. Shivaji along with his family was residing though in the same village, at some distance but appellant-accused along with his family was residing in the same house which was built in the agricultural land and was jointly sharing along with his parents. According to the case of the prosecution apparently there was a quarrel between the appellant-accused and his father the victim on account of demand of share by the appellant-accused in the ancestral agricultural property which was in the name of the victim. 4. According to the case of the prosecution apparently there was a quarrel between the appellant-accused and his father the victim on account of demand of share by the appellant-accused in the ancestral agricultural property which was in the name of the victim. 4. The fateful incident of severe assault on the victim and infact, causing death by beheading his own father occurred on the night of 2nd October, 2007. That time, after taking meals, P.W. No. 1 mother of the appellant-accused and her two grand children were sleeping in the inside room, whereas, the appellant-accused and his father the victim, remained in the outer part of the house. After sometime P.W. No. 1 mother of appellant-accused heard commotion and noise and she came out and witnessed that appellant-accused was assaulting his father on his neck by means of a sickle. She tried to intervene, but invain. In that process, she also received some injuries on her hands. Thereafter she went out and ran towards the house of her another son P.W. No. 2 Shivaji. There another neighbour one Tukaram was also brought and all three along with other relatives came back to the house of P.W. No. 1. They noticed that appellant-accused was sitting outside the house on some platform. Apparently, one sickle was in his hand and as per some of the witnesses, the sickle was lying on the ground. According to the prosecution, it was the sickle which was used by the appellant-accused for assaulting his father. Noticing that the victim had succumbed to the injuries and lying in the house in a pool of blood and the appellant-accused sitting outside the house and not talking to anybody and not disclosing as to how the incident happened, the people gathered there caught hold of the appellant-accused and tied his hands and legs by means of rope in order to see that he could not escape. Thereafter P.W. No. 1 along with other relatives went to the Police Station and lodged her complaint. The said complaint was treated as F.I.R. which is subsequently marked at Exh. 19. Offence was registered against the present appellant-accused for the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as the victim had already died during the assault. At this juncture, the severity of the assault can be mentioned referring to the injuries as observed by Dr. Suresh Gholap P.W. No. 6. 19. Offence was registered against the present appellant-accused for the charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as the victim had already died during the assault. At this juncture, the severity of the assault can be mentioned referring to the injuries as observed by Dr. Suresh Gholap P.W. No. 6. Injuries noticed by Dr. Suresh Gholap P.W.No. 6, are as under : "1) Incised wound over anterior aspect admeasuring 4 inches vertical 3 inches horizontal muscle deep; 2) Cut through injury over neck, only skin of right side neck was remaining. 3) Contused lacerated wound over left temporal region, anterio posteriorly placed admeasuring 5 cms. x 2 cms. x bone deep; 4) Incised wound posterior aspect of left shoulder obliquely placed admeasuring 5 x 4 cms.; 5) Incised wound over left occipital region bone deep 8 cms. x 6 cms." 5. Apparently injury no. 2 was of such a severe nature that there was literal beheading and only small part of skin remained between the head and the remaining body on the victim. 6. During the investigation, the spot panchnama was conducted in presence of the panch witness P.W. No. 5 Pandurang Jakhere and P.W. No. 8 Pandurang Chavan. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that out of these two witnesses, P.W. No. 5 did not support the case of the prosecution and had turned hostile, probably, this had prompted the prosecution to examine another panch who is P.W. No. 8 who did support the case of the prosecution and the spot panchnama is at Exh. 39. Also during the investigation, the Inquest Panchnama was drawn and the body was sent for post-mortem and the postmortem report Exh. 29 was obtained from Dr. Suresh Gholap P.W. No. 6. Admittedly, the appellant-accused was arrested on the spot as he was found in his hands and legs and entire body in tied condition by rope. He was arrested by the Investigating Officer Arun Bhor P.W. No. 9 and brought to the Police Station and further remands were obtained. 7. At the conclusion of the investigation, the articles then seized, were sent for chemical analysis and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. Matter was committed to the Course of Sessions and ended in conviction as mentioned earlier. 8. During the trial, total nine witnesses were examined. 7. At the conclusion of the investigation, the articles then seized, were sent for chemical analysis and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. Matter was committed to the Course of Sessions and ended in conviction as mentioned earlier. 8. During the trial, total nine witnesses were examined. Out of them, important witnesses are P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. mother, younger brother and relative of the appellant-accused. Another important witness is Dr. Suresh Gholap P.W. No. 6. So also in this matter, statements of P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded during the investigation under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the local Judicial Magistrate F.C. Parola and said local J.M.F.C. was examined as P.W. No. 7. 9. During the arguments, it is tried to establish before us that it is a concocted case saddled against the appellant-accused and he has been falsely implicated. It is also tried to argue that the motive as to the dispute over the agricultural property has not been established. Needless to say that the motive assumes much importance when the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In the present matter, the incident of assault on her husband at the hands of the appellant-accused though at the end of cross-examination, she had rather not supported the case of the prosecution, in our considered view, this is not at all a mitigating circumstance to the case of the prosecution when the substantive evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 support the case of the prosecution on the major aspects as to accused was sitting outside the house when P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 reached and found out body, there was no explanation from the accused as to how his father had died. This is important for the reason that the appellant-accused was also residing in the joint family and on that night he was also at home and as such, even on preponderance of probabilities, there was nothing brought before the trial Court as to how the death of his father occurred. So far as the evidence of P.W. Nos. This is important for the reason that the appellant-accused was also residing in the joint family and on that night he was also at home and as such, even on preponderance of probabilities, there was nothing brought before the trial Court as to how the death of his father occurred. So far as the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is concerned, these witnesses are consistent on the aspect that P.W. No. 1 came to the house of P.W. No. 2 and narrated the episode of what she had seen and then these witnesses along with others, came back to the house of the appellant-accused, noticed him outside the house sitting on a verandah. The blood stained sickle was also found and was taken charge under panchnama. Though it is so, it must be mentioned that the C.A. Report is not incriminating so far as the sickle is concerned, inasmuch as no blood grouping could be conclusively given of the blood on the sickle. However, the substantive evidence of these witnesses is required to be accepted as to the occurrence of the incident. 10. Apart from the above, the medical evidence is of much importance and the gravity of injuries causing instantaneous death, can be ascertained from the description of the injuries detailed earlier. Admittedly, it is a homicidal death case and the appellant-accused was immediately found outside his house and not giving any explanation and did not talk to any of his relatives even to his mother and brother. Even the substantive evidence of P.W. No. 7 J.M.F.C. Parola is of much importance and supporting the case of the prosecution as to the recording of the statements of P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 under section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the apparent attitude on the part of P.W. No. 1 the mother, coming to the rescue of her son at the end of her cross-examination, cannot be construed as failure of the prosecution to establish the case against the appellant-accused. In other words, the substantive evidence of P.W. No. 1 is required to be dealt with, more so, in the light of the evidence of P.W. No. 7 J.M.F.C. Parola and also in the light of the factual position as to the relations inter se between the appellant-accused and P.W. No. 1. In other words, the substantive evidence of P.W. No. 1 is required to be dealt with, more so, in the light of the evidence of P.W. No. 7 J.M.F.C. Parola and also in the light of the factual position as to the relations inter se between the appellant-accused and P.W. No. 1. Again it may be mentioned that though in the substantive evidence, P.W. No. 1 had not stated anything regarding she receiving any injuries, there is substantive evidence of Dr. Gholap P.W. No. 6 as he had identified the handwriting of the another Dr. Yermalkar, who had attended P.W. No. 1 and observed her injuries. The medical certificate given by said Dr. Yermalkar has been identified by P.W. No. 6 another Doctor, and it was taken on record and marked Exh. 30. The injuries sustained by P.W. No. 1 were (1) C.L.W. in between thumb and index finger of right hand and (2) C.L.W. on left forearm admeasuring 2 x ¼ x ½ cm. As such, this is a corroborative material to the case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2 and 3 and also of P.W. No. 9 Investigating Officer Arun Bhor. Considering the above material as available against the appellant-accused and considering his silence on the aspect as to how his father had died when apparently the appellant-accused was supposed to explain the situation, in our considered view, there is nothing to entertain in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. 11. Writ of order is expedited. 12. Office to communicate this order to the appellant and the Jail Superintendent in which Jail, the appellant is lodged. 13. The fees of appointed advocate are quantified at Rs. 5000/-.