JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, dated 26th June, 2014 in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, the appellant is before this Court. Facts of the case, which are in short compass, are described herein below :- 2. When Eknath Gadpayale (PW 9) was on duty at Police Station, Sakoli, in the night between 23rd and 24th September, 2012, between 2.30 and 2.45 a.m., Ganpat Narayan Thakre (PW 1) came to the Police Station with his grand-sons, Sumedh and Umesh. He lodged his report (Exh.19). On the basis of the oral report, Eknath Gadpayle registered a crime for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, against the appellant vide Crime No. 109/12. The printed First Information Report is at Exh.20. 3. The report of Ganpat (PW 1) states that he was having one daughter, Lata, who was married with the appellant prior to eighteen years age. From the said wedlock, she was having two sons, Sumedh, aged about 16 years, and Umesh, aged about 14 years. Since last four-five years, appellant, Tulsidas, started ill-treating Lata on trivial issues, and also used to assault her. That led Lata to come to the house of the first informant along with her two sons at village Kumbhali. She stayed there for about 25 days. At the time of Pola festival, the wife of the first informant reached Lata to her matrimonial house along with her two sons. It was also reported in the First Information Report that the appellant used to doubt the chastity of Lata and on that account, he used to beat her. The First Information Report further stated that he got the knowledge about the death of his daughter and, therefore, he accompanied by his wife and son, Ganesh, came to the house of the appellant. That time, he noticed that Lata was lying in a dead condition with serious injury on her head and when he made enquiries with his grand-sons, Sumedh and Umesh, he came to know that the appellant, their father, gave an axe blow, resulting into Lata's death. 4. That time, he noticed that Lata was lying in a dead condition with serious injury on her head and when he made enquiries with his grand-sons, Sumedh and Umesh, he came to know that the appellant, their father, gave an axe blow, resulting into Lata's death. 4. After registration of the offence, Eknath Gadpayle (PW 9), as per the directions of his superior officers, handed over the investigation to Assistant Police Inspector, Mr. B.B. Shripad. 5. Mr. Purushottam Badhewale (PW 8) was Police Inspector at Police Station, Sakoli. On 29th September, 2012, the investigation of Crime No. 109/12, which was with Mr. B.B. Shripad, came to him as Mr. Shripad was on leave. During the course of investigation, Purushottam (PW 8) recorded statements of the witnesses. Since Mr. Shripad was then transferred from Sakoli Police Station, Mr. Badhewale completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet to the Court of Law. 6. After completion of investigation, a Final Report was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakoli, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, being exclusively triable by the said Court. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 1/2013. 7. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed for his trial. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses and also relied upon various documents, duly proved during the course of the trial. The appellant was examined by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, and he submitted that a false case was lodged against him. After appreciation of the prosecution case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as observed in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. Hence this appeal. 9. We have heard Smt. Sonali Saware, learned counsel, who was appointed through Legal Aid Committee, in order to give legal assistance to the appellant, and Mr. T.A. Mirza, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Both the learned counsels strenuously urged before this Court in support of their respective prayers. They also took us in minute detail through the notes of evidence and other admissible evidence. 10. Two questions arise before this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties. T.A. Mirza, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Both the learned counsels strenuously urged before this Court in support of their respective prayers. They also took us in minute detail through the notes of evidence and other admissible evidence. 10. Two questions arise before this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties. They are:- (1) Whether the prosecution has proved that deceased Lata met with homicidal death?, and (2) Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant is the author of the injuries resulting into the death of Latabai? 11. Sau. Chhaya Pramod Tirpude (PW 6) was called by the police at the house of the appellant on 24th September, 2012. She noticed that Lata was lying in a dead condition in the pool of blood. Police prepared Inquest Panchanama of dead body in her presence and another Panch Tukaram Gotefode (Exh.48). Also, a Spot Panchanama was drawn in their presence by the Investigating Officer (Exh.47). An axe was lying near the dead body. The said axe was also seized under the Seizure Panchanama along with other articles in the presence of this Panch witness by drawing a Seizure Memo (Exh.49). While examining the dead body, the witness to the Inquest noticed a serious injury on the head of the deceased. 12. Dr. Rupesh Badwaik (PW 3) was the Medical Officer at Sub-District Hospital at Sakoli since the year 2009. He received the dead body of Lata for post-mortem examination. Accordingly, Dr. Rupesh along with Dr. C.D. Meshram conducted autopsy on the dead body. The Autopsy Surgeons found following external injuries on the dead body of Lata:- “3. …............ 1. Lacerated wound present over middle of forehead between two eyebrows, size 2 c.m. X 0.5 cm. 2. Lacerated wound present on left side of eye brow on forehead, size 1 x 05 cm. 3. Abrasion present over lateral side of right nostril, size 2 cm. 4. (There was a query for us during post mortem as to whether)? fracture injury present on left wrist joint. 5. Incise wound with stab present over middle of back side – three wounds in number, size 1 cm each. 6. Large lacerated wound present over right occipito parital region of skull, size 5 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm with underlined fracture of skull bone. Following two fracture injuries were discovered by external examination/palpation: (i) Over left wrist joint. Incise wound with stab present over middle of back side – three wounds in number, size 1 cm each. 6. Large lacerated wound present over right occipito parital region of skull, size 5 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm with underlined fracture of skull bone. Following two fracture injuries were discovered by external examination/palpation: (i) Over left wrist joint. (ii) Fracture of occipito parietal bone of skull.” After opening the dead body, they also noticed injuries under scalp, skull and brain. Those are as under:- “4. …............................... Large lacerated wound present over right occipito parietal region of skull – size 5 x 1 x 2 cm with under lined fracture of occipito parietal bone on right side, length of fracture approximately 6 to 7 cm. Hemotoma was found present of size 5 x 2 cm over right side of occipito parietal region.” According to the doctor conducting the post-mortem, all the injuries were ante-mortem. According to the evidence of Dr. Rupesh Badwaik, the internal injuries under the scalp, skull and brain were corresponding to the Injury No.6 as mentioned in Column No.17 of Post-mortem Report. According to doctor, who conducted postmortem, the cause of death was head injury [injury to the brain]. The post-mortem Report is duly proved and is at Exh.25 on record of the court below. 13. In view of the Inquest Panchanama, evidence of the doctor and injuries as mentioned by the Autopsy Surgeon in the Post-mortem Report, there is no escape, but to reach to the conclusion that Lata met with a homicidal death. Therefore, the first question is answered accordingly. 14. After reaching to the conclusion that Lata met with a homicidal death, the Court is to examine the prosecution case as to whether the appellant is the author of the injuries, resulting into the death of Latabai. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant being falsely implicated and that the witnesses, who were cited by the prosecution, as eye-witnesses, had turned hostile. Therefore, there is a serious doubt that the appellant is the author of the injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention in that behalf to the evidence of Sumedh Shende (PW 2) and Umesh Shende (PW 7), to buttress her aforesaid submission. Except the aforesaid submission no other point was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention in that behalf to the evidence of Sumedh Shende (PW 2) and Umesh Shende (PW 7), to buttress her aforesaid submission. Except the aforesaid submission no other point was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. Sumedh Shende (PW 2) and Umesh Shende (PW 7) are the sons of the appellant. Umesh Shende has flatly refused to support the prosecution case for the obvious reason. Though Sumedh Shende in his Examination-in-Chief did not support the prosecution and, therefore, when with the permission of the Court, he was declared hostile, in the cross-examination by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor, he has disclosed the truth. The relevant portion in that behalf is reproduced hereunder:- “3............................... ..............My father was beating mother mercilessly, and, therefore, we have gone to reside there. He was also making quarrels with my mother.” …............On the day of incident during night at about 11 p.m., Umesh had woke up me. When I was slept, Umesh was studying. I had stated before police that when I woke up, I saw that my father is beating my mother by axe on her head by its reverse side. I have also stated before police that at that time my father was having a Towel and Baniyan on his person. It is true that thereafter we brothers have brought Rajnish, Ramchand, and Sumitra Shende. …..” 17. After the arrest of the appellant, when the appellant was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement in presence of Shalikram Khardekar (PW 5). The admissible part of the said disclosure statement is at Exh.41. By the said, the appellant agreed to take out the clothes which were on his person at the time of commission of the offence from the place where he had concealed the same. After recording the memorandum statement, the police party along with Shalikram Khardekar (PW 5) followed the appellant. The appellant took out the clothes which were concealed beneath a big tile in a gutter. Accordingly, Recovery Panchanama (Exh.41-A) was drawn. 18. The Investigating Officer sent the seized articles, such as the clothes of the accused, the axe, which was seized from the spot and the clothes of the deceased for chemical analysis to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition (Exh.64). 19. Accordingly, Recovery Panchanama (Exh.41-A) was drawn. 18. The Investigating Officer sent the seized articles, such as the clothes of the accused, the axe, which was seized from the spot and the clothes of the deceased for chemical analysis to the Chemical Analyzer under requisition (Exh.64). 19. It is to be mentioned that when Sumedh (PW 2) was in the witness box, he was shown the clothes which were seized at the behest of the appellant, and he admitted that those were the clothes which were on the person of his father, namely the appellant, at the time of incident. 20. Chemical Analyzer's Report (Exh.5) shows that deceased Lata was having her blood group as Blood Group “B”. Similarly, the axe was having blood stains of human blood. Though this incriminating circumstance about noticing of Blood Group “B” on the clothes of the appellant was put to the appellant, no explanation was offered by the appellant. 21. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, has admitted that he used to reside at village Sasra along with his wife, Lata, and his two sons, Sumedh and Umesh. He has also admitted about the factum of the dead body lying in his house having the head injury. Once the appellant has admitted that he was residing with his wife in the house from where the dead body of Lata was recovered, the fact which he has not disputed, to it was for the appellant to give a plausible explanation about the same. In that view of the matter, the burden was on the appellant as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, or at least, he was to give any plausible explanation about the fact as to how his wife was found in a dead condition in the house in which the appellant was residing and when she was in his custody. 22. 22. In our view, much importance cannot be attached to the factum of Umesh not supporting the prosecution case, when there is evidence of Sumedh, which is duly corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, such as recovery of clothes at the instance of the appellant having blood stains of Blood Group “B” of the deceased and the fact that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant and the fact that the evidence of Ganpat Thakre (PW 1), father of the deceased, that prior to two months of the incident of death, Lata was required to take shelter of his house along with her two sons due to the ill-treatment owing to appellant's suspicion over her character, which finds place in the report (Exh.19) and also Sumedh has admitted that his father used to beat Lata mercilessly, forcing them to go to the house of their grand-father. We are of the view that the prosecution has proved its case, beyond a reasonable doubt, against the appellant that he is the author of the injuries appearing on the dead body of Lata. Consequently, we see no reason to upset the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below, resulting into passing of the following order:- ORDER (a) Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (b) Fees payable to the learned counsel (appointed) for the appellant are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only). Appeal dismissed.