JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Appellant has assailed the Judgment of conviction awarded by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Trial No.47 of 2009, by which he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of prosecution against the appellant, in short, is as under: Deceased Laxmibai was residing alone. Her husband had died. She was issueless. She was having agricultural land about seven acres. Out of the said land, five acres agricultural land was under cultivation of Ganpati Maraskolhe and two acres of land was under cultivation of Fattuji Maraskolhe on Batai (50% crop). Paddy crops were damaged by insects ('Lashkari ali'). Therefore, Government granted some compensation in respect of damaged crop. Government granted compensation to deceased Laxmibai of about Rs.4000/-. 3. On the day of incident, appellant inquired from Pattu as to whether he received compensation amount. Pattu told him that he did not receive. Appellant tried to beat him. Thereafter, appellant went to his house. He took axe from his house and entered in the house of Laxmibai and killed her. Complainant Ghansham s/o. Ganpati Maraskolhe (PW1) heard cry of his sister Archana and relative Madhuri that “Buddi meli Buddi meli” (“old lady died”). He came out of his house. He saw the appellant near the gate of fencing of his house carrying axe in his hand. He was hurriedly passing. Thereafter, he went to the house of Laxmibai. Laxmibai was lying dead. She had sustained bleeding injury on her head. 4. Complainant went to Police Station and lodged report (Exh.11). Crime was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Immediately, Investigating Officer reached to the spot, prepared spot panchanama and inquest panchanama and sent dead body for post mortem. On the same day, appellant was arrested. He sent appellant for medical examination and recorded statements of witnesses. Crime was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Immediately, Investigating Officer reached to the spot, prepared spot panchanama and inquest panchanama and sent dead body for post mortem. On the same day, appellant was arrested. He sent appellant for medical examination and recorded statements of witnesses. After complete investigation, filed charge sheet against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pombhurna, who, in turn, committed the case for trial to the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. 5. Charge was framed at Exh.6. Prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. Statement of accused u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. He has denied material incriminating evidence against him. After hearing prosecution and defence, the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as stated above. 6. Heard Mr. R.M. Daruvala, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the witnesses who deposed against the appellant are interested witnesses. They are relatives. There was dispute in respect of land of deceased Laxmibai. Their evidence is not reliable. Learned Counsel has submitted that nobody saw the appellant while committing murder of deceased. Hence, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. Heard Mr. M.J. Khan, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. He has submitted that though there was no eye witness of the incident, but evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly show the circumstances stated by them are so strong which only point out guilt towards the appellant and none else. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that there is material evidence against the appellant. Recovery of axe at the instance of appellant is proved. Learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Ghanshyam Ganpati Maraskolhe (PW1) has stated in his evidence that, at the time of incident, he heard cry of his sister Archana and relative Madhuri saying that “Buddhi meli, Buddhi meli” (“Old lady died”). He came out of his house. He saw appellant near the gate of fencing of his house. He was carrying axe in his hand. He was hurriedly passing. He rushed to the hut of Laxmibai. Laxmibai had sustained bleeding injuries on head. 9. He came out of his house. He saw appellant near the gate of fencing of his house. He was carrying axe in his hand. He was hurriedly passing. He rushed to the hut of Laxmibai. Laxmibai had sustained bleeding injuries on head. 9. Madhuri w/o. Arjun Maraskolhe (PW2) has stated in her evidence that in the morning, at about 7.00 a.m. at the time of incident she washed the pulses for preparing food and came outside the house. At that time accused came from outside and was proceeding towards his house. He was saying “Saalila Marunach Takato”. He entered in his house and came out with axe in his hand. She followed him as to see where he goes. Appellant turned towards the house of Laxmibai. Till she reached there, the accused after entering into the house of Laxmibai came outside. She noticed that appellant was holding blood stained axe in his hand and his clothes were stained with blood. Appellant raised axe on her. She entered in the house of Laxmibai. She gave call to Laxmibai. She noticed that deceased was lying near the wall. She picked Laxmibai and brought her in the front room of the house. Blood was oozing from her head. She shouted. All neighbours rushed to the house of Laxmibai. 10. Before the incident, Tulshiram Lataru Yelke (PW3) was sitting in front of Mata Mandir along with other persons. He saw Fattu Maraskolhe near the temple. Appellant followed him. Appellant asked Fattu as to whether he received compensation. Pattu replied that he did not. Appellant took out a wooden stick and rushed on the person of Fattu. Sainath Madavi and Charandas Yerme intervened and saved Fattu. After 2030 minutes, the appellant came with axe. He was wearing baniyan and dhoti. His baniyan was stained with blood. He was saying that he has committed murder. Axe was stained with blood. Appellant proceeded towards Pombhurna. Fattu Vithu Maraskolhe (PW6) has stated in his evidence that when he went to Mata Mandir on the day of incident early in the morning, appellant came there and tried to assault him. Appellant returned back to his house. After sometime, appellant came towards Mata Mandir. He was saying that he has committed murder of LaxmiBuddi. 11. Fattu Vithu Maraskolhe (PW6) has stated in his evidence that when he went to Mata Mandir on the day of incident early in the morning, appellant came there and tried to assault him. Appellant returned back to his house. After sometime, appellant came towards Mata Mandir. He was saying that he has committed murder of LaxmiBuddi. 11. The evidence of Ghanshyam Maraskolhe (PW1), Madhuri Maraskolhe (PW2), Tulshiram Yelke (PW3) and Fattu Maraskolhe (PW6) is corroborated by the evidence of spot panchanama and recovery of weapon. As per the evidence of Prakash Mahadeo Nikhade (PW7), appellant was in custody of police and showed his readiness to show the axe used in the crime. As per the Confessional Statement (Exh.46), appellant took them in the field of Kalamshah Madavi adjacent to the road, from where he took out axe from the heap of paddy straw. It was seized as per seizure panchanama (Exh.46A). Oral evidence is also corroborated by the Medical evidence. As per the evidence of Dr.Ravi s/o. Uddhaorao Gedam (PW5), Medical Officer, he conducted post mortem and found the following injuries : “1. Contused lacerated wound over occipital region about 2 cm (length) x 1 cm (depth) on left side from mid line. 2. Contused lacerated wound over occipital region about 1.25 cm deep and 2 cm linear. 3. Linear fracture at right temporal joint. 4. Linear fracture at occipital joint. 5. Linear fracture at right parietal bone. All the above said injuries were antemortem. On internal examination of skull vault, I found following injuries : 1. Linear fracture at right temporal joint. 2. Linear fracture at occipital joint. 3. Linear fracture at right parietal bone. About 180 ml. blood collected from the scalp at occipital region. On examination of brain, I noticed : Cutting of meninges at left side of occipital region, right side of temporal region, right side of parietal region. External injuries mentioned in column no.17 were corresponding with internal injuries mentioned in column no.19. All the abovesaid injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In my opinion, probable cause of death was haemorrhage due to head injuries. ” 12. As per the evidence of Dr. Ravi Gedam (PW5), Medical Officer, all the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He examined the axe and opined that the injuries at serial nos. In my opinion, probable cause of death was haemorrhage due to head injuries. ” 12. As per the evidence of Dr. Ravi Gedam (PW5), Medical Officer, all the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He examined the axe and opined that the injuries at serial nos. 1 and 3 of Post Mortem Report (Exh.34) could have been caused by the axe. 13. Though there is no eye witness of the incident, but the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution only points guilt towards the accused and none else. The following guidelines are given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : (a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should and not “may be” established; (b) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 14. Keeping in mind the above five principles stated by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to scrutinize the evidence of prosecution as to whether those circumstances are sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. 15. In the present case, though there is no eye witness, but following circumstances proved by the prosecution only points out guilt towards the appellant and none else. (i) Ghansham Ganpati Maraskolhe (PW1) is the cousin of appellant. He has stated in his evidence as under : “On 22.11.2008 at about 7.00 a.m., as my wife was not keeping well, I was cooking, I heard the shouts of my relative Madhuri w/o. Arjun Maraskolhe and my sister Archana wd/o. Maroti Kodape as “Budhi Meli”. I came out of my house. I saw accused Baburao near the gate of the fencing of my house, carrying an axe in his hand. He was hurriedly passing. I came out of my house. I saw accused Baburao near the gate of the fencing of my house, carrying an axe in his hand. He was hurriedly passing. The accused was wearing white Banyan (bandi) and white dhoti. I rushed in the hut of Laxmibai. I noticed the bleeding injury to the head of Laxmibai. Madhuri and Archana were sitting beside Laxmibai and weeping. I offered water to Laxmibai. Thereafter, Laxmibai died.” (ii) Smt. Madhuri w/o. Arjun Maraskolhe (PW2) has stated in her evidence as under : “2. I know the accused sitting in the dock. He is my uncle in law. On 22-11-2008 i.e. on Sunday, at about 7.00 am, I washed the pulses for preparing food and came outside the house to throw the dirty water. At that time, the accused came from outside and was proceeding towards his house. He was saying “Salila Marunch Takto”. The accused entered inside his house and came out of his house with axe in his hand. I followed him watching as to where he goes. The accused turned towards the house of Laxmibai. I followed the accused. Till I reached that place, the accused after entering into the house of Laxmibai, came outside her house. I noticed that the accused was holding blood stained axe in his hand and his clothes were stained with blood. I met the accused near the gate of compound of the house of Smt. Laxmibai. The accused raised said axe on me. The accused did not assault me and the accused proceeded towards the village. 3. I then entered inside the house of Laxmibai. First I saw the bed of Smt. Laxmibai. Laxmibai was not found on the bed lying on the cot I called Laxmibai as “Lahanbai, Lahanbai”. I noticed Laxmibai lying near the wall, which was made up of bamboo mat and mud, in the kitchen (Kudachi Bhint). As soon as I touched Laxmibai, she fell on me. I picked up Laxmibai and brought her in the front room of the house. 4. House of Laxmibai is consisting two rooms i.e. front room and kitchen. I noticed that blood was oozing from the head of Laxmibai. I offered water to Laxmibai, however, she did not consume water. I started shouting. I picked up Laxmibai and brought her in the front room of the house. 4. House of Laxmibai is consisting two rooms i.e. front room and kitchen. I noticed that blood was oozing from the head of Laxmibai. I offered water to Laxmibai, however, she did not consume water. I started shouting. On hearing my shouts, my sister in law Smt. Archana Maruti Kodape, Leelabai Ghanshyam Maraskolhe, Smt. Saibai Ganpati Maraskolhe and Ghanshyam Ganpati Maraskolhe (PW1) rushed to that place., They also tried to offer water to Laxmibai, however, she did not consume water. Laxmibai was dead by that time.” (iii) Before the incident, appellant quarreled with Fattu. Fattu (PW6) and Suresh Madavi (PW4) have stated that appellant tried to beat Fattu. Appellant returned back to his house. After sometime, came to Mata Mandir and was saying that he has committed murder. This amounts to extrajudicial confession. (iv) As per the spot panchanama, dead body was lying in a pool of blood. (v) At the instance of appellant, axe was seized as per seizure panchanama (Exh.46A) from the place only known to the appellant. He took out blood stained axe hidden in a heap of paddy straw. It was seized before Prakash Nikhade (PW7). (vi). The seized properties were sent to Chemical Analyser as per C.A. Report (Exh.60). Clothes of deceased (Articles 2 and 3) and baniyan of appellant i.e. Article1 were found stained with blood group “O”. Axe (Article4) was also found stained with blood group “O”. Blood group of appellant is of group “A”. There was no injury on the person of appellant as per Medical Certificate. (vii). Motive on the part of appellant was that the deceased had received amount of compensation from the Government in respect of damage of paddy crop by insects ('Lashkari ali'). The Investigating Officer obtained documents from the Revenue Officer and also from Bank. Documents Exh. Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 show that deceased Laxmibai had received compensation of Rs.7,500/-. As per the letter of Manager, Cooperative Bank, Pombhurna, deceased had withdrawn Rs.1000/from her bank account. 16. Nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. The circumstances proved by the prosecution only points out guilt towards the appellant and none else. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Judgment is well reasoned. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER 1. 16. Nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. The circumstances proved by the prosecution only points out guilt towards the appellant and none else. Learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Judgment is well reasoned. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court. 4. Fee of appointed Counsel Mr. R.M. Daruwala is quantified at Rs.5,000/-.