Exhibit 35 disclosed that the knife was stained with human blood while the clothes of the appellant were stained with blood group A which was the blood group of Balya, the deceased.
On framing of the charges for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the trial was held against the appellant in which four witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution.
in width, the same was denied by him.
According to P.W.2, a neighbour of the house, on hearing the cries of a lady i.e. P.W.1 he rushed towards her house where he saw the appellant standing outside his house and that the door was closed.
It is stated that on being admitted in the hospital, it was declared that the deceased succumbed to the injuries.
After investigation, P.W.3 stated to have arrested the appellant at 1.50 a.m and drew the scene of occurrence in the presence of Panchas under Exhibit 45, seized the clothes of the appellant under seizure memo Exhibit 46, seized the knife under seizure memo Exhibit 47 and also seized two blood stained bed sheets, simple and blood stained soil from the spot in the presence of Panch witnesses under seizure memo Exhibit 48 which were sent for chemical analyzer report.
The appellant stated to have companye out of the house by shouting to the effect that he had stabbed the deceased and on hearing shouts the appellants brother one Sunil Chandrabhan Bansod arrived at the spot and arranged for an auto rickshaw to take the deceased to Irwin Hospital, Amravati.
Exhibit 36 disclosed that the blood group of the appellant as B group.
Whatever be the subsequent versions made by P.Ws 1 and 2 before the Court, it came out in evidence that at the time of occurrence there were only three persons, namely, the appellant, P.W.1 and the deceased.
He admitted that the appellant was holding a knife in his hand and was standing outside the house.
The printed First Information Report is Exhibit 39.
It is sated that at that point of time she saw the appellant inflicting a stab injury on the deceased on which the deceased raised shouts about the inflicting of the injury by his father and so saying he also fell down.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 01.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.84 of 2006.
As per the opinion of P.W.4, the probable cause of death was the injury to the vital organ like liver which caused internal haemorrhage and shock.
P.W.1, the wife of the appellant, is also the mother of the deceased.
The deceased stated to have asked his father, appellant herein, to sleep inside the house and, thereafter, the appellant went inside which was being watched by P.W.1 who was standing near the door of the house.
In the 313 questioning the appellant totally denied the offence alleged against him.
Then P.W.1 stated to have heard the cries of the deceased to the effect that he was dying and when she asked him, he replied that he was stabbed by the appellant and that she cried for help to which the neighbours gathered who took the deceased in an auto rickshaw to the hospital and that thereafter she lodged the report Exhibit 38.
As per her version before the Court on the date of the incident she was present along with her husband, when the deceased in the first instance asked the appellant whether he had his dinner and thereafter W.1 served dinner to the deceased inside the house.
According to him, when he asked the appellant as to what happened, the appellant, who was holding a knife in his hand, informed P.W.2 that he gave one blow to his son which made him sleep for ever.
The report of the chemical analyzer was marked as Exhibits 30, 35 and 36.
The brief facts which are required to be stated are that on 10.07.2004 W.1 Tulsabai preferred a companyplaint under Exhibit 38 with P.W.3 PSI Madhav Dhande attached to Police Station Frezarpura, Amravati which came to be registered as Crime No.138/2004.
in length and 4 cm.
In the cross examination P.W.1 came out with the information that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and that whenever he was under the influence of liquor he used to throw the household articles and also beat himself.
To the suggestion put to W.4 that the injury mentioned in postmortem report companyld have been caused by the knife of 19 cm.
Apart from the exclusive presence of the appellant with a weapon in his hand as deposed by P.W.2, the other two persons were the deceased and P.W.1.
According to the companyplainant, on 09.07.2004 between 9.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. while her husband, the appellant herein, was sleeping on a wooden company which was in the front companyrt yard of the house, her son Balya the deceased, came from outside and asked the appellant as to whether he had taken his dinner to which the appellant replied in the negative.
P.W.2 was declared hostile.
The appellant, who was sitting on the company outside the house, stated to have went inside the house while P.W.1 was standing at the entrance of the house.
P.W.2 also stated that P.W.1 Tulsabai opened the door which was latched from inside and she ran outside the house.
Balya went inside the house for washing his hands.
Thereafter, the deceased asked W.1 to serve food for him which she did inside the house.
The admission of P.W.1 that the deceased had drinking habit and that whenever he was under the influence of liquor he used to create a ruckus in the house was a factor which had to be necessarily borne in mind while companysidering the offence alleged and proved against the appellant.
