V. P. TIPNIS, J. - (1.)THE accused appellant was charged and tried in Sessions Case No.163 of 1994 for offence of murder of his step brother at about 11 p. m. on 3.1. 1994.
(2.)SHORTLY stated the prosecution case is that there were small quarrels between the wife of the accused and the wife of the deceased. On the fateful day when the deceased and his wife Hemamalini were sleeping in the open field, accused went there and struck a blow on the head of the deceased by means of an axe and then he ran away. Hemamalini immediately went to her father in law who is also the father of the accused and informed him that accused Upkarya had dealt with an axe blow on the head of her husband. The father of the accused came there and removed the axe which was struck on the head of the deceased. He also removed the injured first at Palus and then civil hospital at Sangli but the deceased Darasing died while he was under treatment. The statement of father of the accused and Darasing i. e. Charanya was recorded in the early hours on 4.1. 1994 on the basis of which C. R. no. 0 of 1994 came to be registered in the police station. Investigation was carried out. Statement of Hemamalini was also recorded. Accused was absconding therefore when the chargesheet was filed on 16.3.1994 he was shown absconding. Subsequently accused was arrested in the month of August 1994 and he came to be charged and tried in the aforesaid Sessions Case. Prosecution examined Hemamalini wife of the deceased as eye witness, as also Charanya Pawar, father of the deceased. Evidence of doctor who conducted autopsy was adduced.
The defence of the accused is one of total denial. Accused contended that Hemamalini wife of the deceased had illicit connection with one Seth Ramdas Pawar. She was caught red handed by him and he informed his brother about it. He contended that he was at Phalton and does not know what happened behind his back and thus contended that he was falsely involved in the crime.

After appreciating the evidence the learned Judge held that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and was pleased to convict the accused for offence under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default to suffer further RI for 6 months.

(3.)BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence the accused has preferred this appeal. We have heard Ms. Khot learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Galeria Ld. A. P. P. for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel for both sides we have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. We have also perused the judgment under appeal.
That the deceased died a homicidal death is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and rightly so, as in our opinion there is ample evidence on record of show that the deceased Darasingh was alive till the evening of 3.1. 1994. He received injuries on his head by an axe which axe was in fact removed by his father with great efforts. The deceased Darasing was removed to the hospital and he died while under treatment at about 4 a. m. on 4.1. 1994. Post mortem notes show sutured wound, 10 cm long right parietal region, oblique with pink robber corrugated drain insitu. There were abrasion 2 x half cm left shoulder, minor multiple abrasions, left arm lat, abrasion, 2 cm x 1-1. 5 cm below left eye, palpable fracture of skull bones, Haematoma, right parieto temporal occipital region, linear fracture, right parieto temporal bone, running over, right perietal prominance from left parietal prominance, 2,3 cm long to right temporal bone, Dura ruptured over right parietal and temporal region, and subdural haematoma over whole brain, right parieto occipital lobe and right temporal lobe, laceration, right cerebellum lacerated with haematoma.