Judgment · High Court · 2025

Judgment

30th January, 2025Date of pronouncing judgment : 3rd March, 2025J U D G M E N T (PER : R.G. AVACHAT, J.) : The challenge in this appeal is to the judgmentand order of conviction and consequential sentence, dated Cri.Appeal No.55/2024:: 2 ::06/12/2023, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,Vaijapur, District Aurangabad in Special Case No.28/2020.Vide impugned judgment and order, the appellants herein havebeen convicted and consequently sentenced as detailedbelow:AppellantsSectionsSentence of imprisonmentAppellantsNo.1 & 2302 r/w 34 IPCImprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) each, in default, S.I. for 6 months.AppellantsNo.1 & 2307 r/w 34 IPCR.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) each, in default S.I. for 4 months.AppellantsNo.1 & 2449 r/w 34 IPCR.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) each, in default S.I. for 3 months.AppellantNo.2201 IPCR.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand),in default, S.I. for 1 month.All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Along with these appellants, two more personswere tried. One of them was for harbouring the appellantswhen the other one for committing the offence along with theappellants herein. Both of them have been acquitted. Neither Cri.Appeal No.55/2024:: 3 ::the State nor the victim has preferred appeal against theiracquittal.2.The facts in brief, giving rising to the presentappeal are as follows :- The appellants are the real brothers. They wouldreside at village Lakh-Khandala along with their familymembers. Appellant Devidas has a grown-up daughter - “P”(name withheld). P.W.1 Alkabai along with her husbandBalasaheb (P.W.2) and their two sons – Amol and Bhimrajwere residing in a house constructed by them on their land.The houses of both, the informant and the appellants werenearby of each other.

Amol was a grown-up son of theinformant. About 4 days before the incident dated 14/3/2020,Amol left the house under the pretext of going for work. He didnot return. The daughter of Devidas too went missing from thevery day. The appellant suspected her to have eloped withAmol. They along with two others had, therefore been to thehouse of the informant and threatened them with direconsequences, if their daughter did not return safeimmediately.

Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 4 ::3. By little past 8.00 p.m. on 14 March, both Alkabaiand Balasaheb were sitting on the Otla of their house aftertheir dinner was over. Their son Bhimraj (deceased) wassleeping in the house. Both the appellants came to theirhouse, armed with sharp weapons. They first mounted attackon Balasaheb. Alkabai intervened to save her husband. Shetoo was not spared. Both Alkabai and Balasaheb startedrunning with a fear. They reached the house of Dadasaheb, brother of Balasaheb. Both had suffered multiple injuries. While running away, they heard the screams of Bhimraj. Dueto fear, they did not return to save Bhimraj. Dadasaheb rushedAlkabai and Balasaheb to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad in amini-tempo. On the following morning, after having verifiedAlkabai to have been conscious, police recorded herstatement-cum-F.I.R. Within hours of the assault on both ofthem, it was realised that, Bhimraj was done to death withsharp weapon/s. Mortal remains of Bhimraj was rushed to thehospital. It was subjected to inquest and autopsy.4.The crime was investigated. The crime scenepanchanama was drawn. Blood spots were collected fromcrime scene. The appellants were arrested. The appellant Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 5 ::Devidas made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which asickle came to be recovered besides a motorbike, ash of burntclothes etc. The clothes on the person of deceased/ injuredand the appellants were seized. The seized articles wereforwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Statementsof persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of thecase were recorded. On completion of the investigation, thecharge sheet was filed.5.The Trial Court framed the Charge (Exh.33).appellants pleaded not guilty. Their defence was of falseimplication. According to them, Balasaheb had money withhim, received on sale of agricultural produce. Thieves enteredtheir house and committed robbery.6.To bring home the charge, the prosecutionexamined 18 witnesses and produced in evidence certaindocuments. On appreciation of the evidence on record, theTrial Court passed the order impugned herein.7.Heard. The learned Advocate for the appellantswould submit that, there was delay in lodging of the F.I.R.Dadasaheb, who was instrumental in lodging of the F.I.R., has Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 6 ::not been examined. Both the injured gave evidenceinconsistent with each other. Their multiple statements wererecorded. In each statement, they changed the kinds ofweapons with which they were allegedly assaulted. Accordingto them, both of them suffered Contused Lacerated Wounds(C.L.Ws.), which could only be caused with hard and bluntobject. As such, the medical evidence is inconsistent with theeye witness account. It rules out the assault with sharpweapons. No person from the nearby has been examined. Panch witnesses were the relative of the informant. There isnothing to indicate the appellants and others had threatenedthe informant and her family members a few days before thefateful night. P.W.2 Balasaheb had a low vision. It was dark inthe night. The time of incident has been changed with the spotas well. P.W.2 Balasaheb testified that, he was assaultedwhile he was returning after urinating. There was a fencing tothe house of the injured. Height thereof was such that nothinghappened on the other side was visible from the front yard ofthe house of the informant.8.The learned Advocate would further submit that,P.W.1 Alkabai stated that, at the time of the incident, daughter Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 7 ::of Devidas was in her house. As such, there was no motive forthe incident. Dadasaheb has not been examined. It was hewho discussed with the appellants on behalf of P.W.1 Alkabai.He would further submit that, the earlier incident ofextending threats has not been proved. No report in thatregard was lodged. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 had neverdiscussed about the relationship of Amol with “P”, daughter ofDevidas. He would further submit that, had the assailantsrelieved the injured, they could have described the weapons intheir hands correctly. The attack was sudden. It was madefrom behind. The possibility of quarrel preceding the assault isthus ruled out. The endorsement of the doctor, on Page 203was adverted to. The endorsement lost its efficacy. Thedoctor, without examining P.W.1 Alkabai, gave theendorsement. The one who recorded the statement, has notbeen examined. P.W.3 Shrikant did not depose as to kind ofweapon was stated by the accused Devidas during disclosurestatement. The police officer had already disclosed to P.W.3where they were supposed to go and reason therefor. Assuch, this witness had a prior knowledge. The recovery ofweapon thus loses its efficacy. The disclosure statement Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 8 ::would, therefore, not be relevant under section 27 of theEvidence Act. The photos of the weapon were not placed onrecord. Then he brought to our notice the timing of thedisclosure statement and recovery pursuant thereto. He wouldfurther submit that, one Gaurav Tribhuvan, whose nameappears on seizure panchanama, has also not been examined. The timing of seizure of clothes is contrary.9.The learned Advocate also relied on the followingset of authorities :-(1)Subhan Usman Shaikh & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra2022 (4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 33(2)Shahbuddin Abdul Khalik Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat(Criminal Appeal No.242/1994, decided on 5/4/1995)(3)Durbal Vs. State of U.P.(Criminal Appeal No.1398/2008, decided on 25/1/2011)(4)Jandel Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal no.1690-1691/1996, decided on 8/5/2003)(5)Komal s/o Babusingh & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra2022 (3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 292(6)Anil Phukan Vs. State of Asam1993 AIR (SC) 1462(7)Baliter & anr. Vs. State of U.P.2022 (6) ALJ 739(8)Mahendra s/o Tularam Dehmukh Vs. State ofMaharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.519/2012, decided Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 9 ::on 19/7/2013)(9)Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. Stateof Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.739/2017, decided on 14/7/2022)(10)Adina & ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors.(Criminal Appeal No.12/2022, decided on 29/7/2024(11)Vithal & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal AppealNo.550/1984, decided on 3/8/1995)10.We have perused all the authorities. It needs nomention that, each case is required to be decided on the factsand circumstances thereof and the evidence adduced. Lawprecedent can hardly be of any assistance to decide thecriminal case except when the Court interprets any provision oflaw such as Section 27 of the Evidence Act or alike. Whileappreciating the evidence in the case, the authorities relied onmind.11.The learned A.P.P. would, on the other hand, submit it to be an open and shut case. He would submit that, the injured were rustic and illiterate. Although the incident tookplace somewhat late in the evening, the appellants were theneighbours of the injured. A person acquainted with the injuredcould even be identified by appearance. The appellants had Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 10 ::assaulted from very close range. The injured had, therefore, no difficulty in identifying them. The appellant had a strongmotive. The case is based on eye witness account of theinjured. Their evidence carries greater weight. Pursuant to thedisclosure statement, a sickle used in the commission of crimewas seized. The offence was nothing short of a honour killing. The learned A.P.P. reiterated the reasons given by the TrialCourt in support of the order of conviction. She, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.12.Let us advert to the evidence on record andappreciate the same. P.W.9 Dr. Ashish was the Medical Officeron duty at Sub-District Hospital, Vaijapur on 15/3/2020. Heconducted autopsy on the mortal remains of Bhimraj during9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. He noticed following injuries on theperson of Bhimraj :-(i)Incised wound extending from lower margin of eye up tothe base of nose with almost complete cut of nostrilirregular with lane of 8 cm. and maximum width 4 cm. inmiddle.(ii)Incised wound below cricoid cartilage extending fromsterno cleidmastoid muscle to another irregular with Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 11 ::length 11 cm. and width maximum 3 cm. midline with cutmajor vessels and trachea cut seen.(iii)Stab wound over right side chest extending from nippletowards midline obliquely with length 8 cm. and widthmaximum 3 cm. with lungs protrading from it.(iv)Stab wound two over left arm anterolaterally andposteriorly approximate 4 x 2 cm. in dimension.(v)Stab wound over left side lower axillary regionapproximate 3x2 cm.(vi)Stab wound over left side of back laterally approximate3x2 cm.(vii)Stab wound over back and neck midline approximate3x2 cm. obliquely directed.13.P.W.9 Dr. Ashish issued post mortem report(Exh.83). In his opinion, cause of death of Bhimraj is “Injury totrachea and major vessels of neck due to incised wound overneck and stab wound over right side chest with other multipleincised wounds as mentioned. 14.During his cross-examination, he testified to haveperused inquest panchanama before conducting autopsy. Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 12 ::According to him, in the inquest panchanama, injury to lefthand of the deceased and on his back were not noted. According to him, normal incised wound is caused due tosharp cutting edged weapon. He denied that incised woundwas not possible due to sickle like object or a hook. Hetestified the injuries on the person of the deceased were veryserious. Those were caused with full force. He admitted thathe should have mentioned the width of the weapon used. Hewas unable to give characteristics of injuries in gaping shape. According to him, there are two types of incised wounds –spindle shape and gaping shape. He did not notice anydragging injury on the dead body.15. The learned Advocate for the appellant wouldsubmit that, the Medical officer did not testify that the injurieswere sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Inour view, the nature of injuries suffered by the deceasedsuggest the intention of the assailant was to do away with him(Bhimraj).16.P.W.13 Dr. Arti examined P.W.1 Alkabai and P.W.2Balasaheb and noticed following injuries :- Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 13 ::P.W.1 Alkabai:-(i)CLW on left parietal region size 2x1x1 cm. margin sharpclean reddish. Age of injuries were 2 to 3 hours, causedby sharp and heavy weapon.(ii)CLW left vertex region of head size 12x3x2 cm. Marginsharp deep reddish, age of injuries within 2 to 3 hours, caused by sharp and heavy weapon.(iii)CLW left palm measuring 10x4x3 cm. margin sharp deepreddish, age of injury within 2 to 3 hours, probableweapon sharp and heavy.(iv)CLW over nose size 2x1x1 cm. sharp, deep and reddish, age of injury within 2 to 3 hours. Probable weapons harpand heavy. Nature of injury opinion reserved. Patientadvised CT brain plain surgery opinion, ortho opinion, sopatient referred to GMC Hospital, Aurangabad for furthermanagement, nature of injury can be given on the basisof investigation. P.W.2 Balasaheb :-(i)CLW over left forehead size 6x2x1 cm. oblique, age ofinjury within 2 to 3 hour, caused by sharp and heavyweapon. Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 14 ::(ii)CLW suprapubic region size 2x2x2 cm. horizontal within2 to 3 hours, caused by sharp and heavy weapon.(iii)CLW over left chest size 4x2x2 cm. horizontal within 2 to3 hours, caused by sharp and heavy weapon.(iv)CLW over left hand, size 15x10x3 cm. horizontal within 2to 3 hours, caused by sharp and heavy weapon.(v)CLW over right buttock size 2x2x1 cm. horizontal within 2to 3 hours, caused by sharp and heavy weapon.(vi)CLW left axilla, size 5x3x2 cm. oblique within 2 to 3hours, caused by sharp and heavy weapon. Patientadvised CT brain (plain), surgery opinion and orthoopinion so patient referred to GMCH Aurangabad forfurther management. Opinion as to nature of ionjuryreserved till arrival of investigation report. She referred to the injury certificates (Exhs.94, 95and 96, 97 respectively.17.During cross-examination, she testified that thefinal opinion was given on the basis of discharge card issuedby Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad. It is a Government Hospital. Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 15 ::The discharge card is issued in the official course of businessand there is no reason for us to disbelieve the same. 18.The crime scene panchanama (Exh.56) indicate itto be a residential house of P.W.1 Alkabai and P.W.2Balasaheb. As such, the fact that the incident took place by9.00 p.m. on 15/3/2020 in front of and in the house of thesetwo witnesses is the fact duly established.19.The question is, whether the appellants are theauthors of the crime. Although number of witnesses havebeen examined, the fate of this appeal is dependent on theevidence of two injured eye witnesses. If their evidence isfound to be cogent, reliable and fit to act upon, the appeal isbound to fail. We even need not advert to the other evidenceon record which has even no much relevance. 20.P.W.1 Alkabai testified that, she would reside alongwith her husband (P.W.2 Balasaheb), elder son Amol andBhimraj (deceased) at Lakh-Khandala. Her house was on theiragricultural land. The front yard of the house has a fencing ofa human height. In the neighbourhood, there are agriculturallands and houses of others. The appellants (brothers inter-se) Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 16 ::would reside in their neighbourhood along with their family. Onthe way to their house, there is house of appellants. It is at adistance of half a Km. There is no other way between the twohouses. She rear goats. Goats are tied in the house. Field ofPunjaram was towards west of her residence. Kum. “P” wasdaughter of one of the appellants. She further testified that, afew days before the incident, both the appellants and Sagar(son of Devidas, since acquitted) had come to their house. They told her that Amol eloped “P”. They were told that, Amolwas out for work. They threatened them that if their daughterdid not return home, they (P.W.1 and P.W.2 and their familymembers) would not be spared. 21.P.W.1 Alkabai further testified that, it was little past8.30 p.m. of 24/3/2020. After taking dinner, she along with herhusband (P.W.2 Balasaheb) was sitting at the entrance of herresidence. Bhimraj was sleeping in the house. Both theappellants arrived. They were armed with weapons – sickleand sword. Both of them started assaulting Balasaheb and heras well. Both assaulted them indiscriminately. They, therefore, started running away to save their lives. They went to thehouse of Dadasaheb (brother-in-law of P.W.1). Dadasaheb Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 17 ::had his residence at a short distance. They told Dadasahebthe incidence. He immediately brought them to Primary HealthCentre, Vaijapur. On the following day, police arrived andrecorded her statement-cum-F.I.R. (Exh.47).22.She further testified that, before the incident, herfamily did not have any quarrel or dispute with the appellants. Their relations with the appellants were cordial. After takingmeal, she along with her husband had come out of the housefor a brief walk. Her son Amol was studied up to 12th Standard. The appellants were on talking terms with Amol. He even usedto go for work with them. Amol left the house 4-5 days prior tothe incident. He informed that, he was going for work. He didnot return. A missing person’s report was lodged. They evenmade enquiry with the appellants. They, however, did notmake enquiry of “P”. They even did not suspect that Amol and“P” eloped together. According to her, “P” was in the house bythe time of the incident.23.She further testified that, the incident took placewhen she and her husband were outside the fencing. Both ofthem were together until lasting of the incident. Her husbandwas attacked while he was on way back after relieving himself Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 18 ::(urination). She admitted that, in her subsequent statementshe stated different weapon in the hands of the appellants. She, however, clarified that, she was mentally disturbed. Shedenied the suggestion that due to darkness, she could notvisualize who were the assailants and what kind of weaponsthey were armed with. On first assault, her husband fell on theground. While she was proceeding towards her husband, shewas attacked from behind. She too collapsed. Withoutthinking anything, both of them started running to savethemselves. Bhimraj was in the house. She even did notremember who took her to the hospital. She claimed to havebeen unconscious in the hospital. She, however, testified that, in the hospital at Vaijapur, she was semi-conscious. Dadasaheb (brother-in-law) discussed with the police on herbehalf. She denied that no such incident did take place.24.P.W.1 Alkabai was subjected to a searching cross-examination. It has been brought on record that, there is ashed outside her house. The front yard has a fencing. Noother person would reside along with them except they four. Dadasaheb was the only brother of her husband. Her father-in-law would reside with him. Her field was separate from the Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 19 ::field of Dadasaheb. At the time of the incident, there wascotton crop in her field.25.P.W.2 Balasaheb testified describing topography ofhis residence and surrounding area. The said evidence isconsistent with the evidence of P.W.1 Alkabai. He went on tostate that, his son Amol left the house under the pretext ofwork. He did not return. Thereafter, daughter of Devidas leftthe house. It so happened 4 days prior to the incident, theappellant suspected that she eloped with the Amol. On 12March, the appellants along with Sagar had come to theirresidence. They abused and threatened to kill them, if thedaughter did not return on the next day. He went to VaijapurPolice Station on the following day and lodged missingperson’s report.26.P.W.2 Balasaheb further testified that, by 9.00 p.m.on 14 March, both the appellants came armed with sickle andsword. He along with his wife (P.W.1 Alkabai) were outside oftheir house. They first attacked him. His wife Alkabai too wasnot spared. Both of them, therefore, started running to savetheir lives. They went to the house of his brother Dadasaheb. They disclosed him the incident. Due to fright, he did not Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 20 ::return to his residence. His relations brought them to thehospital at Vaijapur in a small vehicle. The police recorded hisstatement. He was thereafter shifted to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad.27.He too was subjected to a searching cross-examination. It was suggested to him, maize crop in his fieldwas harvested about 15-20 days before the incident. Hestated to have had sold his goats to one Akhil for Rs.28,000/-.The defence meant to say that he was having hefty amountwith him. It was the case of the appellants that robbers/thieves had come to Balasaheb’s residence. They assaultedthem and robbed of money. The injured did not buy thistheory. According to him, he did not discuss about Amol and“P” with anybody else. He did not lodge the report with policeabout the alleged incident of the appellants and Sagar visitinghis house and extending threats. He explained that, since noincident (fight) had taken place and hence, no report waslodged. He was confronted with his statement under Section164 of the Cr.P.C. and particularly the matter portion marked“A” therein, which reads that, he has lodged missing person’sreport on the day of the incident (about Amol). We do not find Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 21 ::this contradiction to be material one to disbelieve the evidenceof P.W.2 Balasaheb. According to him, the said report waswritten by Vishwas Bagul. Be that as it may. The fact remainsthat he had been to the police station to report that his sonAmol left the house and did not return.28.It has also been brought on record through hiscross-examination that, he had low vision. He, however, flatlydenied to have not seen the appellants/ assailants. Headmitted to have stated different weapon in his differentstatements. He clarified that, his mental condition was notnormal and therefore, such thing happened. He denied that, attack on him was, while he was returning after urination. Itwas a sudden attack on him. According to him, there wererepeated attacks. He had fallen down 3-4 times before hereached his brother’s house running. According to him, hiscondition was fluctuating while he was in Ghati Hospital. Hedid not remember when the police repeatedly visited thehospital to enquire about the progress of his health. He did notremember the police and doctor to have had come together.He flatly denied that he was unable to speak in Ghati Hospital.He was confronted with his police statement, to bring on record Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 22 ::that, after assaulting him, both the appellants entered hishouse. The word “entered” is only missing from the statement.It has been brought on record that his statement to police issilent to record that he heard cries of his son.29.P.W.3 Shrikant is a witness to multiplepanchanamas. First one is a disclosure statement made byappellant Devidas (Exh.55). He then taking the police and thepanch first to the house of the injured. There the crime scenepanchanama was drawn (Exh.56). Then he took to the fieldand took out a sickle from the bushes on the embankment of afield. Then he took to another place wherefrom an ash of burntcloth was seized (panchanama Exh.57).30.We do not propose to give much importance to theevidence of this witness and, therefore, the judgment of theApex Court relied on in respect of recovery under Section 27 ofthe Evidence Act is not referred to in extenso.31.The fact that the crime scene panchanama wasdrawn immediately on the following morning is evident from thetestimony of P.W.4 (investigating officer). There was blood allover in the room. Bed sheet was blood stained. The learned Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 23 ::Advocate brought to our notice the variance in the timing of thepanchanamas. He also submitted that, one Gaurav Tribhuvan, whose name appears in the panchanama (Exh.51) was notexamined.32.P.W.5 Laxman is a witness to the panchanamarelating to seizure of clothes of injured (P.W.1 and P.W.2). It isat Exh.64. This witness is a real brother of P.W.1 Alkabai.33.We do not propose to advert to the other evidenceon record. The injuries on the person of P.W.1 and P.W.2 havebeen duly proved. Both of them were the injured eyewitnesses. They are uneducated and rustic as well. On thesame night, their son Bhimraj was killed in the house. Theevidence of both the injured witnesses lead us to infer thattheir son Amol was in emotional relationship with daughter ofone of the appellants. The injured belong to Scheduled Caste. The appellants were necessarily opposed to the relationship. Although no police report of the incident dated 12 March waslodged, we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of boththe injured witnesses that, on the given day the appellantsaccompanied by Sagar (since acquitted) had visited theirhouse and extended threats. Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 24 ::34.The record indicates that, the incident had not beenwitnessed by any other person. It was little past 9.00 in theevening. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 being rustic and illiterate, testified somewhat inconsistent with each other. Inconsistencies are as to the actual spot whereat theappellants mounted attack on them. Although it wassomewhat late in the evening, the appellants were knownperson to the injured victims. They had assaulted them fromvery close range. Even if we assume that there wassomewhat dark, it is not difficult to identify a known person. Itis true that, there is no direct evidence as regards assault onBhimraj. We have, however, to infer that, after mountingassault on P.W.1 and P.W.2, the appellants entered the houseand killed Bhimraj (an innocent boy). The injuries on hisperson indicate the appellants had intended to do away him. Their target might be Amol and therefore, the appellantsappear to have not continued assault on P.W.1 and P.W.2.True, the injuries on the person of P.W.1 Alkabai and P.W.2Balasaheb are in the nature of C.L.Ws., which could be causedby hard and blunt object. They being rustic, were unable todescribe the nature of weapon, whether sharp or hard and Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 25 ::sharp. The attack on Bhimraj took place immediately afterP.W.1 and P.W.2 were assaulted. Injuries on his personindicate he suffered injuries with sharp edged weapon. Although according to the prosecution, one third person wasaccompanying them (Sagar), the evidence of both thesewitnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) indicate that the assailants werethe appellants and none else. Their previous statements werenot referred to, to bring on record omissions amounting tomaterial contradictions.35.The F.I.R. was lodged within hours of the incident.To be specific, it was lodged by 4.00 a.m. The informant’sbrother-in-law had accompanied the informant. One canunderstand what kind of mental state the informant and herhusband had while the incident took place and little thereafter, more so when they learnt about their young son to have beendone to death. True, P.W.1 Alkabai’s brother-in-law Dadasahebhad accompanied her to the Police Station. His thumbimpression is on the F.I.R. He put his thumb impression inproof of the F.I.R. to have been recorded in his presence. Hehas not been examined. Although P.W.1 Alkabai testified thatDadasaheb interacted with police on her behalf, her Cri. Appeal No.55/2024:: 26 ::examination-in-chief goes a long way to infer that she narratedthe incident. We have to believe the same, since Dadasahebwas not around while the incident took place. His non-examination is not found to be fatal. At the cost of repetition, itis observed that, P.W.1 Alkabai and P.W.2 Balasaheb are theinjured eye witnesses. The appellants had a strong motive toassault them. No sooner they were assaulted, their sonBhimraj was killed in a very short while. We have, therefore, toinfer that the killers of Bhimraj were none other than theappellants. We find the evidence on record to haveestablished the appellants to have first made a bid on the lifeof P.W.1 Alkabai and P.W.2 Balasaheb and then killed Bhimraj. The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on recordand convicted the appellants. We find no reason to interferewith the impugned order. The appeal sans merit. The appealis, therefore, dismissed. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-