JUDGMENT : V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused No. 2 against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2012. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default S.I. for 15 days. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The complainant - PW 1 Shobha was residing at Bhimgarjana Nagar, Ozar along with her family. The appellant was residing at some distance from her house. (b) On 8.4.2012, Shobha returned home. At about 9.00 p.m., original accused No. 1 - Prakash came to her house and asked for dinner. Shobha provided dinner to him at his house. At that time, she saw deceased Amrya @ Amar was sleeping outside the house of Prakash. After sometime, her son Sandeep (PW 2) who was sleeping woke up and said he wanted to answer the call of nature. He alone went to attend the call of nature. Sandeep saw the appellant assaulting Amrya on his head with a weapon known as 'tikav' in local language. Sandeep told Shobha about this. At that time, Shobha saw from a distance of 10 to 15 feet that Amrya was lying outside the house of Prakash. Prakash was in the house. Thereafter, Shobha lodged FIR Exh. 17. Thereafter, investigation commenced. (c) The dead body of Amrya was sent for postmortem. PW 7 Dr. Pawar conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Amrya @ Amar. According to him, Amar died on account of head injury. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant - original accused No. 2 as well as original accused No. 1 Prakash under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence was 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. Their defence was 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. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. 5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the evidence of PW 2 Sandeep who is an eye witness to the incident. Sandeep has stated that on the day of the incident, he had gone to answer the call of nature. After attending the call of nature, he was returning to his house. At that time, he saw light in the house of Prakash Pawar, therefore, he looked inside the house. He saw the appellant Sanjay assaulting Amar @ Amrya with a tikav. Amar @ Amrya sustained injury on his right side forehead. Thereafter, the appellant Sanjay ran away. Sandeep identified the appellant as well as tikav before the Court. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of this witness so as to disbelieve his evidence. 6. PW 1 Shobha is the complainant in the present case. She has stated that the appellant was residing at some distance from her house. On 8.4.2012 i.e. on the date of the incident, she returned home at about 6.00 p.m. At about 9.00 p.m., original accused No. 1 - Prakash came to her house and asked for dinner, hence, she went to his house and provided him dinner. At that time, she saw Amrya @ Amar was present in the house of Prakash. Thereafter, Amra was sleeping outside the house of Prakash. Sometime thereafter, her son Sandeep awakened her and told her that he wanted to answer the call of nature. After sometime, Sandeep returned and told her that he had seen the appellant Sanjay assaulting Amrya on the head with tikav. At that time, she saw Amrya lying outside the house of Prakash. At that time, accused No. 1 Prakash was in the house. Thereafter, she lodged FIR against the appellant as well as Prakash. After sometime, Sandeep returned and told her that he had seen the appellant Sanjay assaulting Amrya on the head with tikav. At that time, she saw Amrya lying outside the house of Prakash. At that time, accused No. 1 Prakash was in the house. Thereafter, she lodged FIR against the appellant as well as Prakash. PW 1 Shobha has further stated that when the incident took place outside the house of Prakash, at that time, Prakash was in his house. Thus, the evidence of Shobha shows that immediately after PW 2 Sandeep witnessed the incident of the appellant assaulting Amrya on the head with tikav, Sandeep came home and narrated the incident to his mother Shobha. Thereafter, Shobha lodged the FIR. 7. The evidence of PW 7 Dr. Pawar and the other evidence on record shows that it was a case of homicidal death. Dr. Pawar conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Amar @ Amrya. Dr. Pawar noticed the following external injuries:- (1) Right eye (blackish); (2) Contusion seen on right fronto parietal region admeasuring 20 x 10 cm; Dr. Pawar noticed haematoma under the scalp. He also noticed subdural haematoma seen on right fronto parietal region (The portion near right eye and right ear), Intra cerebral bleeding seen and Brain was congested and oedematous (swelling to brain because of bleeding). In the opinion of Dr. Pawar, the injuries were possible with tikav (pick-axe) Article 1. 8. On going through the evidence especially that of PW 2 Sandeep, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, Thus, we find not merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.