3. On 28.01.2018, complainant Suraj Janardhan Pawar
labour work and his sister Seema was alone in the home. He
accused Pramod to his sister with the axe. They returned to home
out. In the meantime, his father and mother took his sister to the
hospital. He also found the axe with blood lying on the spot. He
relations with Bharat Chavan.
Police Station, Arni. In seizure panchanama, the Police stated that
Painganga river in order to destroy the evidence.
5. After conducting the inquest, the dead body was sent
for post-mortem. The Medical Officer conducted post-mortem and
drawn report. As per the post-mortem report, death of deceased
Seema was caused due to head injury. The police sent seized axe to
medical officer and collected medical opinion report. Police also
offence under Section 302 is triable by the Sessions Court.
Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was recorded.
6. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution
accused/appellant filed the present appeal.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that
the appellant. He submits that there was no intention of the
appellant to kill the deceased. The quarrel had taken place and all
of sudden it crossed the limit. He further stated that learned Trial
settled principles of law. He further stated that the learned Trial
witness to the alleged incident. He further stated that the learned
she has not seen the actual assault. He further contended that the
9. On the contrary, learned APP has submitted that the
prosecution has examined in all total 7 witnesses. They are PW-1
Janrao Naik, PW-5 Arjun Wamanrao Sabale, PW-6 Dr. Sarita
and proved the case.
10. The learned APP further submits that after leading the
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded and entire evidence
was read over to it and he never gave an explanation to that effect.
11. After going through the evidence led by the
2) Whether the act of the appellant amounts to murder
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
3) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial
Court require interference?
REASONS
12. As regards the point No.1- Prosecution examined PW-6
Dr. Sarita Nipane Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem
report and recorded injuries caused to the deceased Seema.
It has come in the evidence of PW-6 that the deposition is
concerned, she was a Medical Officer, who performed the post-
mortem after receiving the requisition from the police. As per the
post-mortem report, the following injuries which are ante-mortem
were recorded.
a) Chop wound present over right parito temporal
region of size 8 cm x 4 cm x bony deep. Margins are
clean cut and reddish in colour.
b) Chop wound present over right parito region of
size 15 x 4 cm x cavity deep margins are clean cut and
reddish in colour with fracture of skull details are
mentioned in column no.19(ii).
c) Chop wound present over right occipital region of
size 8 cm x 3 cm x bony deep. Margins are clean cut and
reddish in colour.
d) Chop wound of size 12 x 3 cm x cavity deep over
left paritooccipital region with evidence of fracture of
skull bone.
Details are mentioned in column no.19(ii).
e) Chop wound present over dorsum of left wrist of
size 6 x 4 cm x tissue deep with evidence of cut fracture
over lower end of redius and ulna margins are clean cut
and blood infiltrate.
f) Intracath in situ over right cubital fossa (part of
treatment outside)
g) Evidence of fracture over skull details are
mentioned in column no.19.
h) Evidence of cut fracture of lower end of redius
and ulna. Margins are clean cut and blood infiltrate.
13. It is to be noted here that PW-6 Medical Officer, in her
evidence has stated that she found evidence of pregnancy on
opening the uterus and as per her opinion, the cause of death was
due to head injury. As per her opinion, the injuries mentioned in the
post-mortem are possible by the axe, the weapon used by the
accused/appellant and the death is possible due to injuries caused
by the axe. Even the weapon used was also proved through PW-6
Medical Officer and she has specifically opined that injuries caused
to the deceased was possible by means of the axe used by the
accused/appellant.
She further opined that in view of the post mortem report
and injuries mentioned by the PW-6, the death was caused due to
head injury. The prosecution proved that the death of Seema was
homicidal and defence has not disputed the homicidal death of
Seema.
14. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code deals with
culpable homicide which reads as under:
"299. Culpable homicide.--
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of
thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is
likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be
firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the
offence of culpable homicide.
(b)A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A,
intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's
death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here
B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the
offence of culpable homicide.
(c)A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it,
kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was
there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was
not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B,
or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to
cause death.
Explanation 1.-- A person who causes bodily injury to
another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily
infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other,
shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.-- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the
person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to
have caused the death, although by resorting to proper
remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been
prevented.
Explanation 3.-- The causing of the death of child in the
mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to
culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any
part of that child has been brought forth, though the child
may not have breathed or been completely born."
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code explains culpable
homicide as, causing death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death or with the intention of causing such a bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the act
complain of his likely to cause death. The first two categories
required the intention to cause death or likely to cause death. While
the third category confines itself to the knowledge that the act
complain of his likely to cause death. On the facts of this case, the
offence of culpable homicide is clearly made out.
15. We further considered the CA report Exhibit 28, which
shows that the axe at serial No.1 was found having human blood
stains on it for group AB. The CA report further shows that blood
group of deceased Seema was of group AB. Therefore, it is proved
by the prosecution that the blood found on the seized axe was of
deceased Seema. Even otherwise, it is nobody's case that Seema
suffered accidental or suicidal death. Therefore in view of the above
findings, we affirm that the death of the deceased Seema was
homicidal one. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
16. As regards point No.2- To prove the case, it needs to
be considered the evidence led by the prosecution. As far as PW-1 is
concerned, who is the brother of PW-1 Suresh Pawar, whose
evidence is at exhibit 17. He has specifically stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 28.01.2018 in the morning, he
received a phone call of one Sanjay Thakare and he told that
accused assaulted Seema with the axe on her head. This incident
took place at his house and when he went to his house, he saw that
the axe was lying there.
17. In cross-examination, he also stated that after the
marriage, the appellant has treated her sister properly and after one
year, on 25.01.2018 in the evening, there is quarrel between them,
so accused/appellant has driven out from the village. On the date of
incident, when he came to home, he saw blood spread on the bricks
and tawa as well as some other persons have also gathered there.
He has specifically denied that there was any whisper in the crowd
that someone has killed Seema. Therefore, his evidence on the
point of earlier quarrel as well as when he reached on the spot and
he saw the blood was spread over bricks and tawa is a natural one.
18. It has come in the evidence evidence of PW-2 Ankush
Sengar, who was a photographer and he specifically stated that he
has taken photos on the spot of incident where the axe and other
material were lying there. He has specifically stated that he has
taken 9 photos and those photos were saved in a memory card and
those were Articles Nos. A1 to A2.
19. It has come in the evidence of PW-3 Smt. Anjanabai
Chavan, who is an eye-witness to the incident, she specifically
narrated that the incident took place at the house of father of
Seema at the village. The incident took place in the morning.
When she was cleaning utensils in her house, she heard shouts of
Seema. She and her daughter-in-law went to the house of Seema
and they saw the accused was beating Seema with the axe. By
seeing them, the accused thrown the axe and ran away. Then the
other persons gathered there and she identified the accused in the
Court. She also stated in the cross-examination that it is not proved
that she had heard a gossip about beating Seema by somebody.
The statement of this witness under Section 164(5) of the
Cr.P.C. is recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
In her statement, she has stated that the accused was beating
Seema with the axe. The prosecution proved her statement
recorded (Exhibit 20) under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C.
20. PW-3, has specifically stated that she has witnessed the
incident and, therefore, her solitary evidence is sufficient to award
the conviction.
21. As well as Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code
provide's the punishment for murder. Section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code is reads as under:
"300. Murder.--
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
(Secondly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or
(Thirdly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or
(Fourthly)-- If the person committing the act knows that
it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a)A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in
consequence. A commits murder.
(b)A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease
that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with
the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in
consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although
the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause the death of a person in a
sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is
labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as
would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person
in a sound state of health, here A, although he may
intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if
he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as
in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c)A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound
sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary
course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty
of murder, although he may not have intended to cause
Z's death.
(d)A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a
crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of
murder, although he may not have had a premeditated
design to kill any particular individual.
Exception 1.-- When culpable homicide is not murder.
-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and
sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who
gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:
(First)-- That the provocation is not sought or
voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person.
(Secondly)-- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such
public servant.
(Thirdly)-- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
Explanation.-- Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting
to murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
(a)A, under the influence of passion excited by a
provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child.
This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not
given by the child, and the death of the child was not
caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused
by the provocation.
(b)Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this
provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor
knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him,
but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed
murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c)A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to
sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z.
This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given
by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his
powers.
(d)A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says
that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and
that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden
passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e)A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the
right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him
from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion
in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much
as the provocation was given by a thing done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.
(f)Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent
rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's
rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's
hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here
may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is
guilty of murder.
Exception 2.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the power
given to him by law and causes the death of the person
against whom he is exercising such right of defence
without premeditation, and without any intention of
doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of
such defence.
Illustration
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to
cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists
in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by
no other means prevent himself from being
horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed
murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, being a public servant or aiding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes
death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes
to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his
duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards
the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.-- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.-- It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.-- Culpable homicide is not murder when
the person whose death is caused, being above the age
of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death
with his own consent.
Illustration
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under
eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on
account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent
to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder."
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code explains murder and it
provide that culpable homicide is 'murder', the act by which the
death is caused with the intention of causing death, or act complain
of his so eminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death, or such a bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Herein this
case, the prosecution proved that there is an assault by the accused
with in intention to kill Seema and caused bodily injury and
considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution
has proved the case to convict the accused/appellant. Such case is
based on the direct evidence, which pointed out the guilt of the
accused as per the statement of PW-3 who is neighbourer and
independent witness.
We may refer to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act which
reads as under:
"134. Number of witnesses- No particular number of
witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of
any fact."
Therefore, as the sole testimony of PW-3 is reliable and on
the basis of solitary witness of PW-3 as her credibility is not shaken
by any adverse circumstances and, therefore, it inspired confidence.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering Section 134
of the Evidence Act and considering testimony of sole witness, in
the case of Avtar Singh Vs. State of Harayana AIR 2013 SC 286 held
that if the testimony of the respondent witness attached credibility,
accused can be convicted on the basis of such sole testimony. The
Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph No.12 as under:
"12. .... In this context, it will be relevant to refer to the
decision of this Court reported in Tej Prakash v. The
State of Haryana [JT 1995 (7) SC 561
[LQ/SC/1995/999]] wherein this Court held that all the
witnesses of the prosecution may not be called and it is
sufficient if witnesses who were essential to the
unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is
based must be called by the prosecution. The legal
position has been stated in paragraph 18 as under: "18.
In support of his contention that serious prejudice was
caused to the appellant by non-examination of Phool
Singh who, had been cited by the prosecution as one of
the witness, Mr. Ganesh relied upon Stephen
Senivaratne v. The King. AIR 1936 P.C. 289, Habeeb
Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad, 1954 (5) SCR
475 and the State of UP and another v. Jaggo Alias
Jagdish and others 1971 (2) SCC 42
[LQ/SC/1971/223]. The aforesaid decisions can be of
little assistance to the appellant in the present case.
What was held by the Privy Council and this Court was
that witnesses who were essential to the unfolding of the
narrative on which the prosecution is based must be
called by the prosecution whether the effect of their
testimony is for or against the case for the prosecution
and that failure to examine such a witness might affect a
fair trial. It was also observed that all the witnesses of
the prosecution need not be called. In the present case,
the witnesses who were essential to the unfolding of the
narrative had been examined."
(Emphasis added)
The law on this aspect can be succinctly stated to the
effect that in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution should take earnest effort to place the
material evidence both oral and documentary which
satisfactorily and truthfully demonstrate and fully
support the case of the prosecution. Where there were
several persons stated to have witnessed the incident
and the prosecution examined those witnesses who were
able to depose the nature of offence committed more
accurately leaving no room for doubt about the
involvement of the accused in the occurrence and the
extent of their involvement with specific overt act and
also were able to withstand the cross-examination by
maintaining the sequence and the part played as
originally stated, it will be wholly irrelevant and
unnecessary to multiply the number of witnesses to
repeat the same version."
In Avtar Singh (supra), has considered that the assessment of
evidence cannot be made in technical manner and the real life must
be kept in mind for arrival of truth.
It would be thus apparent in this case that all the witnesses of
the prosecution may not be called and it is sufficient if one of the
witness essential to upholding the narrative one with the
prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution.
23. As regards the deposition of PW-4 Digambar Naik, in
his presence, the spot panchanama was prepared along with other
panch Rathod and panchanama was proved through PW-4. In his
presence, police seized the axe, pieces of bangles, simple soil, blood
stained soil from the spot of incident. The prosecution also proved
the seizure panchanama through PW-4. It has come on record that
prosecution proved the seizure panchanama of clothes of the
accused.
24. As regards the motive is concerned, it is the case of the
prosecution that the accused was suspected that the deceased
Seema had illicit relations with one Bharat Chavan and proved the
motive. The prosecution has led the evidence of the brother of
Seema. He categorically deposed about the ill-treatment meted to
the deceased Seema and further it has come in his evidence that
there was constant quarrel between the accused and Seema as he
was suspecting character of the deceased Seema. From his
evidence, the prosecution has established that the relations between
the accused with deceased Seema were constrained and he used to
beat her and, therefore, the aforesaid evidence establishes that the
accused had a strong motive to kill Seema. On appreciation of the
evidence, we are of the considered view that prosecution has
proved that the accused has motive to kill Seema.
25. It has come in the evidence that after assaulting his
wife deceased Seema, he ran away from the spot and on the spot,
the weapon was recovered which was having a blood stain. It has
further come on record that prior to the incident, there was a
quarrel and, therefore, with a pre-mediation having a motive on the
ground that suspicious about her character, he assaulted with the
weapon and after assaulting the same, he ran away. Therefore,
conduct of the accused is important that after assaulting his wife,
he ran away from the spot. Therefore, it was very clear that he was
having an intention and motive to kill Seema.
26. In view of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
A fact can be said to be proved when, after considering the matters
before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its
existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition
that it exists and to that effect, we are guided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Govardhan and others Vs. State of Harayana
reported in 2025 (3) SCC 378.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Govardhan and others Vs.
State of Harayana reported in 2025 (3) SCC 378, held in paragraph
Nos.20, 21 and 22 as under:
"20. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
a fact can be said to have been proved when, after
considering the matters before it, the court either
believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable
that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of
the particular case, to act up on the supposition that it
exists. The court undertakes this exercise of examining
whether the facts alleged including the particular
criminal acts attributed to the accused are proved or not.
21. It is also to be noted that the law does not
contemplate stitching the pieces of evidence in a
watertight manner, for the standard of proof in a
criminal case is not proof beyond all doubts but only
beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, if a clear
picture emerges on piecing together all evidence which
indicates beyond reasonable doubt of the role played by
the accused in the perpetration of the crime, the court
holds the accused criminally liable and punishes them
under the provisions of the penal code, in
contradistinction to the requirement of proof based on
the preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil
proceedings.
22. It will be relevant to discuss, at this juncture, what is
meant by "reasonable doubt". It means that such doubt
must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not
be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the
doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely
vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an
imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt, but a fair
doubt based upon reason and common sense as
observed in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC
395 wherein it was observed as under :
"24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are
free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot
afford any favourite other than the truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overly
emotional response. Doubts must be actual and
substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons
arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as
opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible
doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common
sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case."
23. While applying this principle of proof beyond
reasonable doubt the Court has to undertake a candid
consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable
manner as observed by this Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96 as follows:
"8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to
prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A
criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only
beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the
expression 'reasonable doubt' is incapable of definition.
Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which
affords moral certainty to the Judge.
9. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal
law in the United States has quoted from judicial
pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal
Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
'It is difficult to define the phrase "reasonable doubt".
However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of
the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or
followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the
Webster case [Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush 295 :
59 Mass 295 (1850)] . He says:"It is not mere possible
doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and
depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible
or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which,
after the entire comparison and consideration of all the
evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that
consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding
conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the
charge."'
10. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence
authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of
the 5th Edn.) thus:
'The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an
honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with
reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire
to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of
guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an
inference of the possibility of the innocence of the
accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is
one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence
in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid
consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid
consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the
minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there
is no room for a reasonable doubt."
28. In Govardhan (supra), it is further held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in paragraph No.66 as under:
"66. We must also keep in mind that in a trial, the
assessment of evidence cannot be made in a technical
manner and the realities of life must be kept in mind for
arriving at the truth as observed by this Court in State of
H.P. v. Lekh Raj (2000) 1 SCC 247 as follows;
"10. The High Court appears to have adopted a technical
approach in disposing of the appeal filed by the
respondents. This Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
[(1974) 3 SCC 277 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 886] held: (SCC
pp. 285-86, para 23) '23. A criminal trial is not like a
fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's
imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the
question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial
is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is
an event in real life and is the product of interplay of
different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion
about the guilt of the accused charged with the
commission of a crime, the court has to judge the
evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic
worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the
final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts.
Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should
be given to the accused, the courts should not at the
same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy
on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of
conjectures.' The criminal trial cannot be equated with a
mock scene from a stunt film. The legal trial is
conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the
accused arraigned. In arriving at a conclusion about the
truth, the courts are required to adopt a rational
approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth
and the animus of the witnesses. The hypertechnicalities
or figment of imagination should not be allowed to
divest the court of its responsibility of sifting and
weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion
regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular
circumstance keeping in view the peculiar facts of each
case, the social position of the victim and the accused,
the larger interests of the society particularly the law
and order problem and degrading values of life inherent
in the prevalent system. The realities of life have to be
kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for
arriving at the truth. The courts are not obliged to make
efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or
loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The
traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be
replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach
for administering justice in a criminal trial. Criminal
jurisprudence cannot be considered to be a utopian
thought but have to be considered as part and parcel of
the human civilisation and the realities of life. The
courts cannot ignore the erosion in values of life which
are a common feature of the present system. Such
erosions cannot be given a bonus in favour of those who
are guilty of polluting society and mankind."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Goverdhan and others (supra),
has held that the reasonable doubt is not imaginary trivial or merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common
sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.
29. As the prosecution has proved through PW-3 that
accused/appellant who assaulted the deceased Seema and coupled
with the evidence of PW-6 Medical Officer, the prosecution proved
the case beyond reasonable doubt that accused none other have
committed the murder of the deceased Seema.
30. The reference can also be made in the decision of the
case of Sucha Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2003
(7) SCC 643 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the
principles of following words:
"20. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of
doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering
suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice
cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let
hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting
guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. [See:
Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh and Others [AIR 1990
SC 209]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and
every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely
possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and
common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the
case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is
artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because
human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too
imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous
hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being
punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to
escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline,
not a fetish."
31. As regards the deposition of PW-7 who was the
investigating officer, who conducted investigation of Crime
No.57/2018, has specifically stated that after receipt of the
information about alleged crime, he registered the offence,
prepared the panchanama as well as called the photographer and
photographs of dead body were taken. He also prepared the inquest
panchanama of the dead body in presence of the two panchas. The
photographs, Article 3 and 4 are the same. He seized the clothes on
the dead body by seizure panchanama. He recorded the statement
of the complainant as per his say.
32. In this case, PW-3 Anjanabai has specifically stated that
accused has thrown the axe on the spot of incident and fled away
from the scene of the incident. The prosecution further proved
seizure of axe from the spot of incident in presence of panch
witness PW-4 Digambar and coupled with the deposition of Medical
Officer PW-6, the death was caused due to the injuries inflicted on
the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the intention
of the accused to cause death and inflicted the bodily injuries and
reasons for causing death of Seema.
33. We have considered the evidence of all the prosecution
witnesses and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the
appellant as well as learned APP for the State. The prosecution
through PW-3 has specifically proved that she was eye-witness and
as per her statement, she saw the accused while assaulting on her
head with the axe. Therefore, as per the prosecution theory, the
prosecution proved the case against appellant to convict the
appellant/accused.
34. Therefore, considering the totality and circumstances
of the case, we find that the death of Seema is a homicidal one and
for that the accused/appellant is the author of the injuries caused
which led to death of deceased. Therefore, prosecution has proved
the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
against the accused. The learned Trial Court has considered all the
aspects of the matter and relied upon the evidence and rightly
convicted the appellant. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in
affirmative.
35. As to point No.3: Having answered point No.1 and 2 in
affirmative, there appears no reason to interfere with the judgment
and order of conviction passed by learned Trial Court, who has
considered all attending circumstances and has passed a well
reasoned order. Point No.3 is accordingly answered in the negative.
Hence we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha, Dist. Yavatmal, in Sessions
Trial No.10/2018 is hereby confirmed.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/09/2025 18:15:01
