JUDGMENT V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 16.2.1999 by Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sess. Case No. 884/96 the appellant named above has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as verbally canvassed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before us.
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the defence and the prosecution we have scrutinized the record and reappreciated the evidence.
3. The prosecution story as disclosed on reappreciation of evidence on record stated briefly is that the deceased Laxmi was the wife of accused Rupja. Accused Rupja used to suspect character of his wife Laxmi. One day late in the evening he returned home and assaulted his wife Laxmi who was at that time busy with her domestic chores and was sitting near the chula i.e. stove in the kitchen. He had first dealt a wooden log blow on her face and thereafter stabbed her with gupti in her chest, as a result of which she died on the spot. Thereafter, accused wrapped dead body of Laxmi in cotton cloth piece blanked i.e. Godhadi and threw her body in the backyard of the house of his neighbour and then returned home, washed the blood stained floor with a gunny bag i.e. gonpat and thereafter, raised cries that somebody had killed his wife. He himself went to his brother-in-law i.e. brother of deceased Laxmi and told him that Laxmi was murdered, but by some one else. Hearing the same, Laxmi's brother and other relatives reached to the spot and one of her brothers, complainant Raju, then gave report of his incident in the small hours of 9.1.1996 at police station, Vasai, on the basis of which the present crime bearing Crime No. 1-3/1996 was registered.
2. P.W.1-Raju Pilena came to know that the victim was killed by the accused. He knew them as husband and wife. He knew that the accused and the deceased had two sons. His evidence consequently tells us nothing. P.W.2-Kiran Kavate is the all important eye witness. Unfortunately both for the witness as also the accused and the victim he is son of the couple and tells the Court how his father murdered his mother. The witness at the time when his deposition was recorded was 13 years old and has given very clear narration of the horrifying scene which he witnessed in his own home around 9.00 p.m. He has deposed that after taking meals around 8.00 p.m. the witness and his brother were about to sleep when their father the present appellant-accused came into the house and dealt a blow of wooden stick on the back of the victim and then taking out a knife stabbed the victim in her chest. He says the knife was long and identifies it as Article 17. He then says :
"Thereafter my father wrapped my mother in a godhadi i.e. cloth blanket and took her out of house. Thereafter, my father returned back in the house, cleaned the blood stains on the floor with gonpat i.e. gunny bag into cloth and washed the floor. Thereafter, my father went out of the house and raised cries. My father raised cries stating that his wife was killed."
He also identifies the godhadi in which the victim was wrapped. The witness has been duly cross examined and has withstood the searching cross examination. During cross examination he candidly admits that he felt a grudge against his father because father killed his mother. He is the only eye witness to the entire incident. P.W.3-Shankar Pilana was told by the accused that Laxmi the victim has been killed by somebody. When he learnt of the incident he went to the scene of offence and he found the body of Laxmi wrapped in godhadi. The statement of P.W.2 that the father wrapped the dead body in godhadi and took it out is thus fully corroborated by testimony of this witness. P.W.4-Anthony Machoda proves the spot panchnama. It is Ex.12. A perusal of this panchnama would show that what is deposed by P.W. 2 is corroborated by factual findings at the spot. Panchnama shows the wooden stick found had the blood stains. The walls show blood stains and the place where the body was found also shows blood stains. The notings in the panchnama thus corroborate the ocular testimony of P.W.2. There is thus intrinsic circumstantial evidence to corroborate the ocular statement of witness P.W.2. P.W.5-Ratan Chavan is panch witness to some panchnama but was declared hostile therefore his evidence need not be considered. P.W.6- Nirmala Chivre is the sister of the deceased. She was told by P.W.2 s/o of the victim as to how the victim met with her death. She thus proves immediate disclosure of the entire incident as witnessed by P.W.2 to P.W.6. The commonly applied test of immediate disclosure is also therefore fulfilled in the present case. P.W.7- Dr. Hemant Patil conducted the post mortem of the victim and proved that the death was homicidal in very clear terms. He states that the injury found on the person of the victim was possible by knife like Article 17. Homicidal death is therefore proved. Then there is testimony of P.W.9-Suresh Dabre regarding recovery of the weapon of offence but the witness has turned hostile and therefore not much use can be made of that recovery. Similar is the case of P.W.10-Rupesh Kamat who has been declared hostile. P.W.11-Lawrence Dabre is also hostile. P.W.12-Vishnu Gholap is the investigating officer who has proved all the documents recorded by him. It is on the basis of this evidence that the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life.
3. In our opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of conviction. Merely because the eye witness was an adolescent boy and related to the victim his testimony cannot be ignored. There is a ring of truth in his entire deposition. The agony he must have felt while so deposing is clear from the deposition. His child like innocence reaches the heart. His statement that he went to sleep thereafter, statement that he hates his father thereafter are eloquent themselves. His is a testimony which inspires confidence. We see therefore no reason why the learned trial Judge should be criticized for accepting that testimony.
4. There is ample circumstantial evidence on record to corroborate what was deposed by P.W.2, child of the victim. Panchnama of the spot supports what the witness says, injury report given by doctor supports what the witness says, the witness categorically stated that first the victim was hit by wooden stick and then knife penetrated in the chest of the victim, one inch deep knife injury is found on the body of the victim on the chest. These in our opinion are intrinsic circumstances proved on record which give total credence to the testimony of P.W.2. There is also immediate disclosure of the incident as witnessed by son P.W.2 to P.W.6 his Aunt. In the present case therefore all the requirements of evidence are fulfilled. There is an eye witness testimony of P.W.2, there is immediate disclosure of what he saw to P.W.6, there is evidence in the shape of panchnama, post mortem report, body injury report etc. corroborating the statement that the accused was the only person who hit the victim by wooden stick and then by knife. These circumstances, in our opinion, prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was responsible for killing mother of P.W.2. In our opinion, therefore there is no substance in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.