Judgment : A.S. CHANDURKAR J. :- By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant challenges his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as Penal Code for short). The aforesaid conviction has been recorded vide judgment dated 24th August 2010 in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2010. The appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant are that one Dnyaneshwar, the appellant his younger brother and Nirmalabai their mother were residing at Bramhapuri. Dnyaneshwar was residing in a separate room while the appellant and his mother were residing in the same house separately. Dnyaneshwar was running a Pan Shop in front of his house. On 5th October 2009 at about 10.30 P. M. when Dnyaneshwar was at his Pan Shop along with one Kailash Kamble, his wife Sapana came running and informed him that the appellant was assaulting his mother by means of a crowbar. Dnyaneshwar immediately ran to the place of incident and snatched the crowbar from the appellant. Nirmalabai was lying on the ground with bleeding injury. Dnyaneshwar along with one Nilesh Khetade and Swanand Shende took Nirmalabai to the Government Hospital. She was however declared dead. Report was thereafter lodged by Dnyaneshwar on the basis of which offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code came to be registered. Due investigation was carried out and on its completion the charge sheet was prepared and submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Brahmapuri. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions it was accordingly committed for trial. The charge was framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal by the original accused. 3. Dr. U. K. Kalsi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been wrongly implicated and convicted for said offence. It is submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on record to hold that it was the appellant who was guilty of having committed aforesaid offence. The incident took place at 10.30 p.m. in the night when there was total darkness. It is submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on record to hold that it was the appellant who was guilty of having committed aforesaid offence. The incident took place at 10.30 p.m. in the night when there was total darkness. The relations between the appellant and his brother Dnyaneshwar were strained and hence he had been implicated in the said crime. The seizure of the crowbar was from a place accessible to public and hence same could not be relied upon to convict the appellant. The learned counsel therefore prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 4. Shri S. S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has relied upon the impugned judgment and supported the conviction of the appellant. It is submitted that the conviction is based on the testimony of P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 who were witness to aforesaid incident. The appellant was immediately arrested and he could not explain the blood stains on his clothes. After proper investigation the learned Judge of the Sessions Court on being satisfied about the guilt of the appellant convicted him for said offence. The learned counsel therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have gone through the entire material on record and carefully considered the same. P. W. 1 Dnyaneshwar Borkar who has been examined vide Ex.11 stated that the appellant was his real younger brother. On 5th October 2009 at about 10.30 P. M. said witness was at his Pan Shop along with one Kailash Kamble. His wife had come running and had informed him that the appellant was beating their mother Nirmalabai. He has stated that his house was situated at a distance of 10ft. from the Pan Shop. He immediately rushed to his house and saw the appellant beating his mother by means of crowbar. He snatched the crowbar from the appellant's hand after which the appellant ran away. The witness has stated that his mother received injuries on her head, shoulder, back and stomach. She was taken to the General Hospital but she succumbed to her injuries. Report was thereafter immediately lodged at Ex. 12. The witness has stated that the appellant used to demand money from his mother and as she had not have given money he had assaulted her by means of crowbar. She was taken to the General Hospital but she succumbed to her injuries. Report was thereafter immediately lodged at Ex. 12. The witness has stated that the appellant used to demand money from his mother and as she had not have given money he had assaulted her by means of crowbar. He has further stated that on the date of incident at about 7 P. M. the appellant had demanded Rs. 2000/- from him but he did not give him said money. This witness has been cross examined by the defence and he has stated that his mother had been mentally ill since 2 to 3 years prior to the incident. He has admitted that she used to give abuses when she was not mentally sound. This witness was suggested that two days prior to the incident the appellant had a quarrel with some body and had received injury on his head and stomach. Said suggestion was denied by the witness. He has further admitted that at the time of incident it was dark and when he reached the place of incident his mother was lying in front of the door in an unconscious condition. The witness has further stated that though it was false to say that when he reached there he saw the appellant beating his mother by means of crowbar, he volunteered that the appellant was standing there holding a crowbar in his hand. 6. P. W. 3 Sapna has been examined below Ex. 20. She has stated that at about 10.30 p. m. on 5th October 2009 when she was sitting in the courtyard she heard the voice of her mother-in-law and the appellant. When she came out she saw that her mother-in-law was lying in the courtyard and the appellant was standing there with crowbar by his side. He has stated that she told her husband about the same by going to the Pan Shop. She has further stated that the appellant had demanded money from her but she did not give him the same. He had also demanded money from her mother-in-law, but she did not give the same to him. In her cross examination this witness had admitted that she was not on good terms with her mother-in-law. She had admitted that when her mother-in-law suffered from the attack of epilepsy she used to abuse anybody. He had also demanded money from her mother-in-law, but she did not give the same to him. In her cross examination this witness had admitted that she was not on good terms with her mother-in-law. She had admitted that when her mother-in-law suffered from the attack of epilepsy she used to abuse anybody. She had admitted that she and her husband were therefore not keeping relations with her. Certain omissions in her statement given to police were put to her. She has however denied that as she was not on good terms with the appellant she was deposing falsely. 7. P. W. 4 Naina Ramteke was residing as tenant at the house of the appellant. She has been examined vide Ex. 21. She has stated that on 5th October 2009 at about 10.30 p. m. she and her friend were staying at the house of Nilesh Khetade. While having meals together they heard the noise of quarrel. They came on the terrace from where they saw the appellant piercing crowbar on his mother. She has stated that Nilesh Khetade got down and at the same time Dnyaneshwar his wife came there. This witness was cross examined and it was suggested that on account of darkness she could not see as to who was present on the ground floor. She has denied the aforesaid suggestion. She could not state about the colour of the clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the incident or about the colour of clothes worn by Nirmalabai. 8. The prosecution has examined Swanand Shende-Ex. 34 who is another eye witness. He has stated that he was running a Pan Shop and Tea Stall which was at a distance of 50 to 60 ft. from the appellant's house. He has stated that on 5th October 2009 he was sitting on a chair in front of his shop. He heard shouts of Nirmalabai. She came shouting out of the house and the appellant was following her. The appellant assaulted Nirmalabai with sabbal on her head. After she fell down the appellant beat her on her back and when she turned around also on her chest. He has stated that Dnyaneshwar arrived there and snatched the sabbal from the appellant's hand. The appellant there after ran away. This witness has stated that Nirmalabai was taken to the hospital and after her death Dnyaneshwar had lodged the report. He has stated that Dnyaneshwar arrived there and snatched the sabbal from the appellant's hand. The appellant there after ran away. This witness has stated that Nirmalabai was taken to the hospital and after her death Dnyaneshwar had lodged the report. In his cross examination it was suggested that on account of darkness said witness was not able to see the spot of incident from his house. The said witness denied aforesaid suggestion. Certain omissions in his statement recorded by the police were also put to him. 9. P. W. 5-Dr. Azmat Ansari Ex. 23 conducted the postmortem. He had found 11 external injuries and two internal injuries on the dead body. The external injuries were mentioned in Column 17 of the Report while internal injuries were mentioned in Column 18 and 20 of the Report. The cause of death was' on account of cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to vital centers with haemorrhagic shock. The Postmortem Report is at Ex. 25. Said witness also examined the appellant on 6th October 2009. He found two injuries on his person. He has opined that the age of said injuries could be more than 48 hours and could have been caused by hard and blunt object. Similarly the weapons seized were also referred to said witness. He has opined that the injuries mentioned in the Postmortem Report were possible by said weapon. 10. P.W. 2 Diwakar-Ex. 14 has been examined as Panch witness for the spot inspection report. He was also Panch witness with regard to seizure of crowbar with which the appellant assaulted. P.W. 10-Dhiraj who was a photographer has been examined below Ex. 58. He has stated that he took photographs of the site and the blood stained articles. Similarly he also took photograph of Nirmalabai in the hospital. 11. The Investigating Officer Jagdish Bhakte has been examined as P. W. 9 vide Ex. 43. He has referred to the investigation made after the offence was registered. He has also referred to articles sent to the Chemical Analyser. In his cross examination he has stated that he arrested the accused from the spot of incident. He was also confronted with the omissions in the statements of P. W. 3 and P.W. 6. The report of the Chamical Analyser is at Ex. 51 to Ex. 54. Ex. He has also referred to articles sent to the Chemical Analyser. In his cross examination he has stated that he arrested the accused from the spot of incident. He was also confronted with the omissions in the statements of P. W. 3 and P.W. 6. The report of the Chamical Analyser is at Ex. 51 to Ex. 54. Ex. 53 reveals that the saree, petticoat, blouse, earth from the spot and the iron rod (sabbal) were stained with blood of blood group 'A'. 12. Insofar as the cause of death of Nirmalabai is concerned, perusal of the postmortem report Ex.-25 reveals that there were almost 11 injuries on her body and the cause of death was on account of cardio respiratory arrest due to injury to vital centers with haemorrhagic shock. P.W. 5-Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem has stated that the injuries mentioned in Column 17, 18 and 20 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has further stated that the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report were possible by the iron rod (sabbal). The length of said weapon was 5 feet 4 inches and the circumference at the broad end was 8 cms. It is therefore, apparent that the death of Nirmalabai was caused on account of the injuries sustained by her as per the postmortem report and hence the prosecution has succeeded in proving the homicidal death of Nirmalabai. 13. Insofar as the incrimination of the appellant for aforesaid offence is concerned, P.W. 1 - Dnyaneshwar has specifically stated that he had seen the appellant beating his mother with the crowbar. He has immediately rushed to the spot from his Pan Shop which was at a distance of about 10ft. from his house. His presence at the Pan Shop at 10.30 P. M. in the night is natural. Similarly the presence of P.W.3 Sapna at her residence is also natural. P. W. 3 - Sapna has stated that on hearing shouts of her mother-in-law she had come out side and had seen her mother-in-law lying down and the appellant standing there with a crowbar. The version of these two witnesses is corroborated by the version of P. W. 4-Naina who was residing in the house of the appellant as a tenant. The version of these two witnesses is corroborated by the version of P. W. 4-Naina who was residing in the house of the appellant as a tenant. Similarly P. W. 6 - Swanand who was also running a Pan Shop and Tea Stall at a distance of 50 to 60 ft. from the house of the appellant has corroborated the presence of appellant and Dnyaneshwar at the site. Though it was urged on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel that P.W. 1 -Dnyaneshwar and his wife P.W. 3-Sapna were not having good relations with Nirmalabai and hence were residing separately, that alone would not be sufficient to discard their evidence. These witnesses had deposed that the appellant used to demand money from P. W. 1 as well as Nirmalabai. It cannot be forgotten that P.W.1 was the elder son of Nirmalabai and hence his immediate presence at the site on getting information about the attack on his mother is natural. There being the evidence of independent persons like P.W. 4 - Naina and P.W. 6 - Swanand on record and the same being corroborative to the evidence of P.W. 1 - Dnyanashwar and P.W. 3-Sapna, it is clear that the deposition of aforesaid witnesses inspires confidence and hence same can be relied upon while coming to the conclusion that it was the appellant who had assaulted Nirmalabai on 5th October 2009 at about 10.30 P.M. at her house. 14. As regards the crowbar used by the appellant for assaulting Nirmalabai and its subsequent seizure is concerned, it is to be noted that P.W. 1 - Dnyaneshwar, P.W. 3 - Sapna, P.W. 4 - Naina and P.W. 6-Swanand have stated that after the appellant had assaulted Nirmalabai, P.W. 1 Dnyaneshwar had snatched the said crowbar from his hand. The spot panchanama-Ex. 15 that was recorded on 6th October 2009 also reveals that said crowbar was lying at said spot and it was seized as per seizure panchanama-Ex. 16. The report of the Chemical Analyser-Ex. 53 reveals that said crowbar had blood stains of blood group 'A' that matched the blood group on the saree and other garments worn by Nirmalabai. It is thus evident from the record that the appellant had assaulted Nirmalabai with said crowbar on 5th October 2009. In view of deposition of P.W. 5-Dr. Azmat Ansari and the postmortem report-Ex. 53 reveals that said crowbar had blood stains of blood group 'A' that matched the blood group on the saree and other garments worn by Nirmalabai. It is thus evident from the record that the appellant had assaulted Nirmalabai with said crowbar on 5th October 2009. In view of deposition of P.W. 5-Dr. Azmat Ansari and the postmortem report-Ex. 25, it is further clear that the death of Nirmalabai was caused on account of being assaulted by said crowbar. The prosecution has therefore proved that the appellant had assaulted Nirmalabai with the crowbar and the same resulted in her instant death. 15. Insofar as motive for commission of aforesaid offence is concerned, it has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.3 that the appellant used to demand money from them as well as from Nirmalabai. On the date of the incident also the appellant had demanded Rs. 2000/- from P.W. 1. Similar demand was made with P.W. 3. Both of them did not accede to said demand. Thereafter he demanded money from Nirmalabai. It is, therefore, clear that on the appellant not receiving the money as demanded he assaulted Nirmalabai with the crowbar on head, shoulder, back and stomach. Various injuries as mentioned in column 17 of postmortem report-Ex. 25 indicate that number of blows were inflicted by the appellant with the crowbar on Nirmalabai. She therefore succumbed to said injuries. 16. Considering the over all material on record we find that no case has been made out for interfering with the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court has after considering the entire material on record has rightly convicted the appellant for aforesaid offence and there is no ground what so ever made out to take a different view. Hence the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.