(1.) The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Sec. 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, read with Sec. 379 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] seeking to challenge the impugned judgment and final order dtd. 25/8/2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 1994 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby High Court convicted Accused No. 1 to 4 (appellants herein) for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; and vide the same judgment, the High Court acquitted Accused No. 7.
(2.) For the sake of brevity and continuity, the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature. Lalsaheb is the deceased who was married to Kamal (PW-3), and they had three children: a daughter, Sushila (PW-4), another daughter who has not been examined and a son, Sanjay (PW-7). Deceased had two brothers-Shankar (Accused No. 5) and Hanmant (Accused No. 6). Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Baban, Prakash, and Suresh) are Shankar's sons, while Accused No. 4 is Hanmant's son. Accused No. 7, Kalpana, is Baban's wife. During the proceedings, Accused Nos. 5 and 6 passed away, leading to the abatement of charges against them.
(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the relationship between the deceased and his brothers had been strained for nearly 20 years before the incident. There had been previous criminal complaints filed between them. The deceased worked in a mill in Bombay and returned to his native village, Brahamanwadi, about 15 days before the incident. During this time, he sold a neem tree to one Shankar Kadam (PW-8). This sale angered Accused No. 2, who confronted PW-8, claiming a share in the tree and objecting to its felling. The deceased denied Accused No. 2's claim, resulting in a heated argument between them three days before the incident, on September 23, 1987.