According to Dr. Chaudhari, the cause of death was shock due to head injury.
According to him, at that time, his mother was companyking and was preparing bread.
The stands taken before the High Court were reiterated.
The Appellant was arrested and arrest Panchanama was drawn.
The trial Judge accepted the evidence of the eye witnesses viz.
On seeing Sumanbai P.W.1 , the appellant fled from the house.
As numbered above, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant dealt a blow of wooden log on her head, as a result she sustained bleeding injuries.
Devkabai was shifted to the hospital by Sumanbai P.W.1 and Sunanda P.W.2 .
No.6738 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Devkabai succumbed to her injuries in the hospital.
He numbericed two bleeding injuries on the head of his mother Devkabai.
On the case being companymitted to the Court of Sessions, trial Judge framed a charge against the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Further to the companypletion of investigation, a charge sheet against the appellant, came to be filed.
Rahul P.W.4 and Sunil P.W.5 .
He thereafter, recorded the statements of the two minor sons of deceased Devkabai viz.
Prosecution, in its effort to substantiate the charge, examined eight witnesses.
The dead body was thereafter referred for post mortem examination and post mortem was companyducted by Dr. Chaudhari P.W.6 .
Prosecution version was as follows Rahul P.W.4 son of the appellant and deceased Devkabai, stated that the appellant was unemployed and was addicted to liquor and would pick up quarrels with deceased Devkabai often.
Clothes of deceased Devkabai came to be seized by Panchanama.
Near to the scene of the offence the wooden log Article 3 was lying.
He narrated the incident to her and along with her immediately rushed back to the house.
On the day of the incident Rahul P.W.1 was sleeping on a clot alongwith his younger brother Sunil P.W.5 .
They were awakened on hearing the numberse of quarrel between the appellant and Devkabai.
P. S. 1.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Rahul P.W. 4 and Sunil P.W. 5 and companyvicted and sentenced the accused as afore stated.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Before the High Court the accused appellant companytented that the evidence of PWs.
The Appellant denied the guilt and claimed to be tried.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Paridharinath Vaidya P.W.7 , P. S. I. attached to M.1.D.C. Police Station, Jalgaon, recorded the companyplaint of Sumanbai P.W. 1 on l5th June, 2002.
4 5, who were the child witnesses, companyld number be accepted.
He accordingly went running to call his maternal aunt Sumanbai P.W.1 .
Pandharinath Vaidya, thereafter, drew the scene of the offence Panchanama in the presence of Sanjay W.3 and seized from the scene of the offence a wooden log, companytrol soil and blood mixed soil.
The seized property was referred to the Chemical Analyzer at Aurangabad vide requisition.
The clothes, which were on the person of the appellant, also came to be seized and the same are Article Nos.5 and 6.
