Judgment :- V.K. Tahilramani J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant – original Accused against the judgment and order dated 29th August 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.64 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant under section 302 of IPC for causing the death of his wife Gangubai by assaulting her with sickle and under section 307 of IPC for causing injuries to Dattatraya and Sanjay. For offence under section 302 of IPC the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for two months and for offence under section 307 of IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to RI for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, RI for two months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:- Deceased Gangubai was the wife of the Appellant. They had two sons, Dattatraya and Rajendra. Gangubai was residing in Village Salgar, District Solapur. She was residing in the said village alongwith her two sons – Dattatraya and Rajendra, Laxmibai, Sanjay and Nirmala. Laxmibai was the wife of Rajendra. Sanjay was the nephew of Gangubai and Nirmala was the niece of Dattatraya. At the time of incident, Sanjay was studying in 2nd Standard. Since last three years before the incident, there used to be quarrels between Gangubai and her husband i.e. the Appellant. The appellant used to assault Gangubai because she was not allowing the Appellant to have physical relations with her. The Appellant also assaulted Gangubai as he was suspecting that she was having illicit relations with another person. Gangubai tried to convince the Appellant but he did not listen to her. The appellant was residing near the Maruti Temple in the Village. Occasionally he used to visit the house where Gangubai and others were residing and the Appellant used to beat Gangubai. Eight days prior to the incident, the villagers including Sarpanch of the Village tried to convince the Appellant but there was no change in the behaviour of the Appellant. The incident took place on 6th July 2010. On that day at 6.30 a.m., Gangubai went to Sutarwadi to work as labour in the field. Eight days prior to the incident, the villagers including Sarpanch of the Village tried to convince the Appellant but there was no change in the behaviour of the Appellant. The incident took place on 6th July 2010. On that day at 6.30 a.m., Gangubai went to Sutarwadi to work as labour in the field. At that time, PW 2 – Dattatraya, PW 12 – Sanjay and Nirmala, niece of Dattatraya were present in the house. The Appellant pushed the door and came inside the house. He had sickle in his hand. He started assaulting Dattatraya with sickle. Dattatraya raised his hand to protect himself, due to this he sustained bleeding injury to the wrist of his right hand. The Appellant gave second blow on the head of Dattatraya. Dattatraya rushed out of the house shouting “melo melo”. Dattatraya then ran to the village square. He was taken to Dr Kamble (PW 8). Meanwhile, the Appellant also assaulted PW 12 – Sanjay with sickle on his neck. Sanjay was also taken to Dr Kamble. Dattatraya learnt that his father i.e. the Appellant, just prior to assault on Dattatraya and Sanjay, had committed murder of Gangubai who was the mother of Dattatraya. Dattatraya then went to Mangalwedha Police Station and lodged FIR. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The Appellant was arrested. The clothes on the person of the Appellant were seized, they were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The sickle, with which the Appellant assaulted Gangubai, Dattatraya and Sanjay, was recovered at the instance of the appellant. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 of IPC for causing death of his wife Gangubai. Charge was also framed under section 307 of IPC for causing injury to PW 2 – Dattatraya on the head and the right hand. Charge was also framed under section 307 of IPC for causing injury to PW 12 – Sanjay on his neck with sickle. The 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 Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. His defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the Appeal. 5. The Appellant had first assaulted his wife Gangubai with sickle and caused her death. Immediately thereafter, the Appellant went to his house and assaulted his son PW 2 – Dattatraya and thereafter he assaulted his nephew PW 12 – Sanjay. As far as Gangubai is concerned, there are two eye- witnesses to the incident viz. PW 10 – Kalpana and PW 11 – Kamalabai. Kalpana has stated that she knew the Appellant. Appellant was the husband of Gangubai. Kalpana has further stated that on the day of the incident, Gangubai, PW 11 – Kamalabai, Parubai and herself were going to do labour work in the land of Chambhar on the Salgar – Lavangi Road. They were all walking to the said field. At about 7.00 a.m. the Appellant came from the front side on his bicycle, he told Gangubai to come to the house. Gangubai and Appellant had an exchange of words. Meanwhile, Kamalabai, Kalpana and Parubai proceeded ahead. When they proceeded ahead, they heard the voice of Gangubai. When they turned back, they saw that the Appellant was assaulting Gangubai with sickle due to which Gangubai had shouted. Immediately thereafter, the Appellant went towards the village on his bicycle Kalpana and others noticed that Gangubai had injuries on the neck and head and Gangubai had died. The evidence of PW 11 – Kamalabai is on the same lines as that of Kalpana. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW 10 – Kalpana and PW 11 – Kamalabai to discredit their evidence. We find their evidence to be cogent, consistent and truthful, hence we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 6. According to the prosecution, the Appellant had the motive to commit the murder of his wife Gangubai. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW 10 – Kalpana and PW 11 – Kamalabai to discredit their evidence. We find their evidence to be cogent, consistent and truthful, hence we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 6. According to the prosecution, the Appellant had the motive to commit the murder of his wife Gangubai. This has been brought on record through the evidence of PW 2 – Dattatray who is the son of the Appellant and deceased Gangubai. Dattatray has stated that the Appellant is his father and Gangubai was his mother. He was residing in Village Salgar alongwith his mother, his brother Rajendra, Rajendra's wife Laxmibai, his cousin brother Sanjay (PW 12) and his niece Nirmala. Since about three years, there were quarrels between his father i.e. the Appellant and his mother Gangubai. The Appellant used to beat his wife Gangubai on the ground that she was not allowing him to have physical relations with her. The appellant also used to beat Gangubai as he suspected that she was having an affair with some other person. He tried to convince his father i.e. Appellant but his father did not listen to him. Since about 2/3 months prior to the incident, the Appellant started residing near the Maruti Temple in the Village. Occasionally, the Appellant used to visit the house and used to assault his mother. About a week prior to the incident, the villagers including Sarpanch of the Village had tried to convince his father but there was no improvement in his behaviour. Thus, the evidence of PW 2 – Dattatray shows the motive of the Appellant to commit the murder of his mother Gangubai. 7. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted his wife Gangubai with a sickle and caused her death. This is borne out by the medical evidence. Dr Gaikwad conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Gangubai. On external examination, he found following injuries:- “(i) Incised wound over base of neck of size 14” x 6” x cut off vertebral column at 05.06 level with cut off major vessels, throat and muscles only skin from right angle of mandible to just in front of left angle of mandible is remaining. (ii) Incised wound on scalp on right side of size 4” x 2” x bone deep present vertically placed. (ii) Incised wound on scalp on right side of size 4” x 2” x bone deep present vertically placed. (iii) Incised wound 3 in number present on right shoulder, half inch apart of size 2” x 1” x 2” transverse based. According to Dr Gaikwad, all above injuries are ante mortem injuries. In the opinion of Dr Gaikwad, the probable cause of death of Gangubai was shock and hemorrhage due to neck injury. Dr Gaikwad further opined that injuries seen on the neck of deceased are possible due to sickle.” 8. As far as the assault on PW 2 - Dattatray is concerned, Dattatray has himself deposed about it. Dattatray has stated that on 6th July 2010, at about 6.30 a.m. his mother had gone to do labour work. At that time, Dattatray, his cousin Sanjay (PW 12) and Dattatray's niece Nirmala were present in the house. The Appellant pushed the door and came inside the house. The Appellant was holding sickle in his right hand. The Appellant started assaulting Dattatray with sickle due to which he suffered injuries on his wrist and head. PW 2 – Dattatray was taken to Dr Kamble and after he was treated, he lodged FIR with Mangalwedha Police Station. PW 12 – Sanjay is also an eyewitness to the assault on Dattatray. We shall deal with the evidence of Sanjay in the next paragraph. 9. It is further the prosecution case that the appellant also assaulted his nephew Sanjay (PW 12). Sanjay himself has deposed about this. Sanjay was about seven years old at the time of the incident. Sanjay has stated that Gangubai was sister of his father. Sanjay has stated that on the date of the incident, he and Dattatray were in the house. His aunt Gangubai had gone to do labour work. At about 8.00 a.m. the Appellant, who was his uncle, came to the house, armed with sickle. He assaulted Dattatray on the head and hand with a sickle. Sanjay ran away to the back of the house. At that time, the Appellant assaulted Sanjay on the neck with a sickle. Sanjay shouted whereupon people gathered at the spot. The appellant then ran away. The neighbours took Sanjay to the doctor. Thereafter he was taken to the Civil Hospital at Solapur, where he was admitted for about 15 days. 10. At that time, the Appellant assaulted Sanjay on the neck with a sickle. Sanjay shouted whereupon people gathered at the spot. The appellant then ran away. The neighbours took Sanjay to the doctor. Thereafter he was taken to the Civil Hospital at Solapur, where he was admitted for about 15 days. 10. The fact that Dattatray and Sanjay were assaulted by the appellant with sickle is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 8 – Dr kamble is the Medical Officer who examined Dattatray and Sanjay. He has stated that Dattatray came to him for treatment at 8.45 a.m. Dr Kamble noticed bleeding injury on the skull of Dattatray admeasuring about 15 cm x 3 cm. There was bleeding injury on the forehead of Dattatray admeasuring 12 x 2 x 2 cm. The radius of right hand of Dattatray was completely cut. Dattatray gave history to Dr Kamble that his father had assaulted him with sickle. Dr Kamble treated Dattatray. Stitches were given to scalp and forehead of Dattatray. Dr Kamble issued medical certificate Exh.31 to Dattatray. According to Dr Kamble, the injuries to Dattatray were possible due to sickle (Art.14). Dr Kamble further stated that there was possibility of death of Dattatray if he had not been treated immeditely. In relation to Sanjay, Dr Kamble has stated that on the same day at about 8.30 a.m. Sanjay came to him for treatment. On examination he found bleeding injury on the back side of the neck admeasuring 15 x 3 x 3 cm. Dr Kamble noticed that there was profuse bleeding from the injury. The injury was muscle deep. The pulse was 104 per min. and blood pressure was 80 x 60. Dr Kamble put stitches on the said injury. The neighbour who brought the patient told Dr Kamble that Krishna, grand father of the boy had assaulted him. Dr Kamble then issued medical certificate Exh.32 in relation to the injuries sustained by Sanjay. Dr Kamble has stated that the injuries are possible by sickle (Art.14). In relation to Sanjay, Dr Kamble has stated that the patient would have died if not treated immediately. 11. PW 3 – Prabhakar had also witnessed the assault on Sanjay. Prabhakar has stated that at about 8.30 a.m. he heard Dattatray shouting. Dr Kamble has stated that the injuries are possible by sickle (Art.14). In relation to Sanjay, Dr Kamble has stated that the patient would have died if not treated immediately. 11. PW 3 – Prabhakar had also witnessed the assault on Sanjay. Prabhakar has stated that at about 8.30 a.m. he heard Dattatray shouting. When he came out of the house, he saw Dattatray running and while running Dattatray had caught his right hand with his left hand. He noticed that Dattatray had sustained bleeding injuries to his right hand. He saw Dattatray was followed by Sanjay. The Appellant was running behind Sanjay holding a sickle in his hand. Prabhakar saw the Appellant giving blow with sickle on the neck of Sanjay. Prabhakar with the help of another person took Sanjay to Dr Kamble (PW 8). 12. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution is relying on the circumstance of recovery of sickle (Art.14) at the instance of the appellant. PW 6 – panch witness Rajendra has deposed about this recovery. It may be noted that PW 2 – Dattatray and PW 12 – Sanjay have identified the sickle (Art.14) as the sickle with which they were assaulted. PW 6 – Rajendra has stated that he was called to the Police Station. The Appellant was present in the Police Station. The Appellant stated that he will produce the sickle. The statement of the Appellant was reduced into writing. The Appellant then led the Police and Panchas and the Appellant took out a sickle from a spot about a kilometer away from Village Salgar. There were blood stains on the sickle. The prosecution is also relying on the evidence of PW 6 – Rajendra to show that when the Appellant was arrested, the clothes on his person were seized. The sickle as well as the clothes which were on the person of the Appellant at the time of his arrest were sent to Chemical Analyser. As per the Chemical Analyser's report (Exh.45), the clothes of the Appellant were stained with blood of 'A' group. The clothes of deceased Gangubai were also sent to the Chemical Analyser. Her clothes viz. saree, blouse and petticoat were also stained with blood of 'A' group. From this, it can safely be inferred that the blood group of Gangubai was 'A'. The clothes of deceased Gangubai were also sent to the Chemical Analyser. Her clothes viz. saree, blouse and petticoat were also stained with blood of 'A' group. From this, it can safely be inferred that the blood group of Gangubai was 'A'. In such case, finding of 'A' group of blood on the Appellant's clothes is a highly incriminating circumstance against him. The Appellant has not given any explanation for the presence of blood of 'A' group on his clothes. The Chemical Analyser's Report (Exh.45) further shows that the sickle was stained with human blood. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Gura Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 ) wherein it has been observed as under: "In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Teja Ram Case (1999) 3 SCC 507 ) we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the absence of the report regarding the 'origin of the blood, the trial Court could not have convicted the accused. The Serologist & Chemical Examiner has found that the chadar seized in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant was stained with human blood. As with lapse of time the classification of the blood could not be determined, no bonus is conferred upon the accused to claim any benefit on the strength of such a belated and stale argument. The trial Court as well as the High Court were, therefore, justified in holding the circumstance as proved beyond doubt against the appellant.” Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of R. Shaji v/s State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266 ) and Molai and another v/s State of Madhya Pradesh ( 1999(9) SCC 581 ). It is pertinent to note that the Appellant has not given any explanation for the presence of blood of 'A' group on his clothes. 13. Panch witness PW 6 – Rajendra has stated that the clothes on the person of the accused were one shirt having three buttons, one dhoti and one bundi (chatan). Rajendra has identified the clothes (Arts. 11, 12 and 13) as the same clothes which were seized from the person of the Appellant. 13. Panch witness PW 6 – Rajendra has stated that the clothes on the person of the accused were one shirt having three buttons, one dhoti and one bundi (chatan). Rajendra has identified the clothes (Arts. 11, 12 and 13) as the same clothes which were seized from the person of the Appellant. That the Appellant was wearing the very same clothes at the time of the incident is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 – Prabhakar who has stated that when he saw the Appellant assaulting Sanjay, the Appellant had worn a shirt having three buttons and dhoti on his person and those clothes were stained with blood. He has identified Articles 11 and 12 as the shirt and dhoti which were on the person of the appellant. A distinguishing factor in relation to the shirt seized from the person of the Appellant is that it had only three buttons which is also stated by the Panch witness as well as PW 3 – Prabhakar. This is also reflected in the panchanama (Exh.19) which relates to the seizure of the clothes which were on the person of the Appellant. The panchanama clearly states that the shirt on the person of the Appellant had three buttons. 14. Smt Upadhyay submitted that the evidence of Prabhakar cannot be relied upon because Prabhakar did not inform the Police about the incident. She further pointed out that Prabhakar was carrying on liquor business and hence he was under the thumb of Police. She submitted that Prabhakar is not an eye witness to the incident and he is a got up witness who had been put up by the Police by putting pressure on him as he was carrying on liquor business. As far as the aspect of not informing the Police is concerned, the evidence shows that when Prabhakar witnessed the Appellant assaulting Sanjay, Prabhakar immediately took Sanjay to the doctor. The evidence of Dr Kamble shows that Dattatray was already being treated by him. Prabhakar must have seen Dattatray and would have left it to Dattatray to lodge FIR. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of Prabhakar so as to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of Dr Kamble shows that Dattatray was already being treated by him. Prabhakar must have seen Dattatray and would have left it to Dattatray to lodge FIR. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of Prabhakar so as to disbelieve his evidence. In any event, even if the evidence of PW 3 - Prabhakar is omitted from consideration, the evidence of PW 12 – Sanjay who has deposed about assault on him is sufficient to hold that Sanjay was assaulted by the Appellant with a sickle on the neck. 15. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the murder of Gangubai with a sickle and he also assaulted Dattatray and Sanjay with a sickle. Thus, we find no merit in the Appeal. Appeal is dismissed. 16. Office to communicate this order to the Appellant who is in jail. 17. We quantify legal fees to be paid to Advocate Smt Sarojini Upadhyay by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs. 5,000/-.