JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---These appeals arise out of a judgment of the Sessions Judge at Pune choosing to convict the accused Prakash Hiraman Hingane before him of the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case against Prakash was that he had deceased Ashok Maruti Chavan belonged to families which owned and were in possession of adjacently situated land at Hadapsar, Taluka and District Pune. The boundary between the two lands had given rise to friction and there were frequent quarrels between the two families. Somedays prior to 12 April, 1986, there had been an exchange of hot words and abuses between Ashok's servant. Complainant P.W. 1 Subhash on the one hand and Mangala, sister of Prakash on the other. Ashok and Prakash were both horticulturists arising vegetables, which they used to take for sale to the market-yard of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee at Hadapsar. On 12 April, 1986 the first to reach the market-yard was the complainant Subhash, who had come with vegetable in a bullock cart. Ashok came separately on a bicycle. Prakash had also come and he had seen Ashok and Subhash. The practice prevalent at the market-yard is that the vendors and intending purchasers all assemble at the yard awaiting the declaration of floor prices. The prices announced are the minimum below which the purchasers are forbiden from bargaining. Of Course, there is no upper limit to the price they can offer to the vendors. The floor rates are announced at about 2.30 p.m. on Saturdays and 3.00 p.m. on other days. 12 April 1986, being Saturday, the announcement was made at 2.30 p.m. As soon as the announcement was made, Subhash started making over his stock to the would be purchasers. Ashok was standing a little away from him. All of a sudden Prakash came from behind and inflicted a number of blows by means of a knife on the person of Ashok. Taken a back, Subhash pulled himself together and rushed to the rescue of his master. He held Prakash from behind and sighting P.W. Ashok Sakore besseched him to help him in snatching the knife from the hands of Prakash. Sakore did as requested. The efforts put in by Subhash and Sakore loosened the grip of Prakash. He freed himself and disappeared. He held Prakash from behind and sighting P.W. Ashok Sakore besseched him to help him in snatching the knife from the hands of Prakash. Sakore did as requested. The efforts put in by Subhash and Sakore loosened the grip of Prakash. He freed himself and disappeared. The wounded Ashok lay on the ground with injuries all over his body and his clothes drenched in blood. Sakore and Subhash carried. Ashok some 25 feets away. P.W. Ratnakar alias Raju who had come to the spot on hearing of the murderous assault on Ashok the latter being his maternal uncle was requested to and he fetched a rickshaw. Ashok was placed in the said rickshaw and the rickshaw started in the direction of the Sassoon Hospital, which is a Government Hospital at Pune. On a requested made by Ashok, he was taken to Ruby Hall, which is also known as Coyaji's Hospital. This Hospital was reluctant to admit Ashok seeing that it was a Police case. Therefore, the rickshaw went in the direction of an eventually landed at Sassoon hospital. By now Ashok had a mere hour or so to go before his life came to an end. As expected, he passed away at 5.30 p.m. The Wanawadi Police contacted Subhash and recorded his report which at Exh. 8. An offence was registered and Inspector Shukla commenced investigation. Prakash was arrested and as there were an injury or two on his person, and the same were recorded in the arrest panchanama at Exh. 18. He was later examined by Dr. Wagholikar and the injury certificate issued by that Doctor is at Exh. 13. Ashok's corpse was subjected to a post-mortem examination by Dr. Pherwani. The notes drawn up by him at Exh. 24. It shows that deceased had received as many as 10 incised wounds and that death was due to traumatic haemorehage pursuant to the multiple injuries sustained by him. The investigation having been completed, appellant was charge-sheeted. 3. When Prakash came up before the Sessions Judge, he was faced with the charge of having committed the murder of Ashok and thereby rendering himself liable to punishment under section 302 I.P.C. Appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence as discernible from the answers given by him when questioned under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and supplemented by a written statement, which is at Exh. His defence as discernible from the answers given by him when questioned under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and supplemented by a written statement, which is at Exh. 28, is to the following effect : After the declaration of floor prices in the market-yard, he started selling the vegetables he had brought. Ashok and Subhash came in his direction abused him and his sister Mangala screaming obscenities in so doing. They beat him. Ashok felled him to the ground which dirtied the clothes that he was wearing. When he tried to get up Ashok and Subhash pressed him to the ground. In order to save his own life, the appellant had been compelled to wave the knife which he had brought for cutting vegetables. This was because he felt that Ashok and Subhash were bent upon murdering him. He had no reason or intention to kill Ashok. 4. To substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant, the prosecution examined Shubash, Sakore, Raju, Dr. Wagholikar, Dr. Pherwani, Inspector, Shukla and certain others. The learned Sessions Judge negatived the plea of private defence set up by the appellant. This has occasioned Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 1988. In this appeal Prakash takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against him. The State aggrieved by the verdict has come up vide Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 1987. The State contends that the evidence clearly established the commission of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. The Sessions Court was in error in convicting the accused on the lesser Court. Having heard Counsel at length, we allow the state's appeal and dismiss that preferred by Prakash. Our reasons for so doing are given below :--- 5. The case against Prakash rests upon the account given by Subash and Sakore. Mr. Peshave submits that the two witnesses examined by the prosecution are both interested prisons and their highly coloured account should not have been accepted. Subhash was a servitor of Ashok and his family being not only in their employment but also personally obliged to them for various favours. In addition, he also had an axe to grind against Prakash and his family. Sakore was more or less a chance witness and he had in fact admitted that he knew Ashok's brother Babasaheb since childhood. It is not possible to agree with this submission. In addition, he also had an axe to grind against Prakash and his family. Sakore was more or less a chance witness and he had in fact admitted that he knew Ashok's brother Babasaheb since childhood. It is not possible to agree with this submission. Subhash admittedly was present when the incident begun and throughout its duration. This is not disputed by Prakash. The account given by Subhash is in substantial conformity with the F.I.R. at Exhibit 8. More important, it is consistent with the medical evidence, in particular, the location of the injuries sustained by Ashok. Ashok's injuries have been set out with sufficient precision in column 17 of the post mortem notes at Exhibit 24. The first injury was on the back right side, the second on the same side; the third on the left lumber region; the 4th on the left shoulder, the 5th on the left forearm; the sixth on the left elbow; the seventh injury was on the left arm frontal aspect; the eighth on the left side front of abdoment; the ninth on the iliac crest left side and the last on the chest right side. Mr. Peshave argues that Subhash has made contradictory statements in regard to the direction from which he gripped Prakash. Now it must be understood that in the very nature of things Subhash could not have been clinging to the waist of Prakash throughout. There must have been moments when Prakash was either totally free from the grip of Subhash or atleast comparatively so. Even after Ashok fell to the ground, it was difficult for Subash to control Prakash and that is why he had to requisition the assistance of Sakore. The mere fact that Subash is a long time employee of Ashok does not mean that he was so obliged to them that he had to tell falsehoods. Sakore's friendship with Ashok's brother Babasaheb also is of no consequence. What the two witnesses say cannot be lightly brushed aside on account of their alleged interestedeness. There is no rule that interested witnesses must not be believed. Where the testimony of such interested witnesses is irrefutable, the Courts cannot insist for other ocular corroboration. Counsel argues that the prosecution has suppressed the origin of the incident. In that very nature of things, there was no reason for Prakash to think of killing Ashok. There is no rule that interested witnesses must not be believed. Where the testimony of such interested witnesses is irrefutable, the Courts cannot insist for other ocular corroboration. Counsel argues that the prosecution has suppressed the origin of the incident. In that very nature of things, there was no reason for Prakash to think of killing Ashok. On 12 April, 1986 or thereabouts, nothing of a serious nature had occurred. The exchanges that had taken place between Subhash and Mangala were of the usual kind and on 12 April, 1986 at the market yard there had not been even any exchange of angry looks between Prakash and Ashok. Therefore, the better probability was that the initiative for the fight was taken by Subhash and Ashok. If Prakash wanted to attack Ashok, he had ample opportunity to do so at a place and time of his choosing. He would not have chosen the market yard and the broad daylight to assassinate Ashok. All this assumes that murderers are clever people who bide for a suitable opportunity and then carry out their designs. The assumption is ill founded. Here there was a background of animosity between the two families. Nothing may have happened on 12 April, 1986 prior to the sudden attack upon Ashok. Yet the enmity between the two families had not died down. What exactly triggeed the thought of assassinating Ashok is not known. But the ill-will between the two families was intense and Prakash may have chosen the time and place thinking that the very crowd would give him the advantage to do the deed and stage a get away. The defence theory has been rejected by the trial Judge after a very elaborate consideration. We agree with that reasoning and quote the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge : "And, therefore, there is nothing improbable in the prosecution story; but the whole defence version is improbable and, therefore, does not deserve acceptance". It was argued that Prakash had an animus not only against deceased but also Subhash. The evidence shows that despite the very prominent part played by Subhash in the incident, Prakash did nothing to him. The absence of injuries on Subhash is pleaded by Mr. Peshave as a reason to discredit him. Mr. Peshave argues that if Subhash was holding Prakash from behind he also would have sustained some injuries. The evidence shows that despite the very prominent part played by Subhash in the incident, Prakash did nothing to him. The absence of injuries on Subhash is pleaded by Mr. Peshave as a reason to discredit him. Mr. Peshave argues that if Subhash was holding Prakash from behind he also would have sustained some injuries. On the other hand, if he took a prominent part in effecting a rescue, he would not have escaped unscathed. If Subhash and Ashok had come upon trouble, as is the case sought to be made out by Prakash, they would have given a better account of themselves and not allowed Prakash to escape with the trifling injuries that were found on his person. The injuries as shown in Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 18 were some scratches and simple contusions. These must have been caused when Prakash was apprehended by Subhash and an effort was made by Sakore to make him release the knife used by him in the assault on Ashok. The theory of self defence does not hold water and agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge, we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 1988. 6. Turning to the appeal preferred by the State, let us quote some excerpts constituting the reasoning of the sessions Judge for taking the view that what Prakash had done amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not murder :--- "Excepting some small incident of certain skirmishes and exchanges of words there is no proximate cause established by the prosecution to show that the accused in all probability would harbour such a serious intention to cause death ................ In fact there is no real motive for the murder, though an enraged mind might do some serious acts on the spot. There were usual dispute over the bandh. They are also not of recent origin. The last mentioned incident had also taken place before 3-4 days. The accused was also not present at that time and, therefore, in the normal course there was no reason for the accused to intend to cause death and to take steps in furtherance of that intention. The probability of some kind of small skirmish enraging the mind of the accused and using the vegetable knife for this purpose of causing the injuries cannot be altogether ruled out ........... The probability of some kind of small skirmish enraging the mind of the accused and using the vegetable knife for this purpose of causing the injuries cannot be altogether ruled out ........... The probability of causing random injuries without much thought cannot be altogether ruled out and one of the fatal injuries, namely, injury No. 1 is inflicted from backside and the accused may not know that it is likely to cause serious injury and the fatal injury. So also it can be said in respect of the other injury near the abdomen. The number of injuries caused, the circumstances in which they were caused in a heated moment, the further conduct in not causing any injury to the person holding him by the waist and further conduct of not causing any injury to any other person trying to snatch the knife and further conduct in dropping the knife by the accused indicate that it was not an Act of enraged mind and it was not an Act of deliberate design intending these very fatal injuries. As mentioned above, the probability of intending some kind of injuries and the knowledge that they are likely to cause death cannot be ruled our. When both these inferences are possible as mentioned above, the lesser inference or the inference in favour of the accused has to be preferred and, therefore, I must hold that the prosecution has not proved by conclusive nature and tendency that these very fatal injuries were intended by the accused ....... It is true that the accused has used a big knife. The accused had given several strokes and 2-3 are important injuries and could have been fatal and this would certainly be a strong circumstance ................ In our case also it will be difficult to infer that the accused had intended the severe injuries though there is sufficient material to infer considering the length of the blade of the knife which is more than 6 "and considering the number of injuries and considering the depth of injuries and considering the situation and the use while giving the blows with knife and considering the other factors, the accused must have known that his Act was likely to cause death. There is certainly a reasonable degree of probability under the circumstances for a reasonable man to infer that his Act is going to cause death, and therefore, it is clearly proved that though the accused had not intended the very injuries, it is clearly proved that the accused has known that his Act was likely to cause death and therefore in my opinion, the present case would not fall under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code." An astonishing piece of contradiction and confusion. Looked at plainly, the position emerging is that Prakash for no rhyme or reason in the sense of something having happened on 12 April, 1986, came from behind. Ashok was taken unawares and Prakash struck him time and again by means of a dangerous knife. With great difficulty the knife could be got released from him. Taking advantage of the exhausted strength of Subhash and the pre-occupation of Sakore, Prakash successfully staged a get-away. Of course he did not strike Subhash or Sakore. The infliction of 2 to 3 fatal injuries on Ashok is established. Despite all this, the learned Judge believes that Prakash had not intended the killing of Ashok. The reasoning is perverse and all that we can say is that murder if self evident. No unintending assailant would inflict as many as 10 injuries with a knife unless his intention was to commit the murder of the victim. That Subhash and Sakore were separed, means no more that Prakash did not intend to commit their murder. For a murderer to intend murder it is not necessary that he should kill every one in sight. Mr. Peshave refers us to (Motu others v. State of Haryana)1, reported in 1976 Criminal Law Reporter (S.C.) at page 387. In that case two persons died and they had a murder of injuries on their persons. But what led the Court to hold the appellants guilty of the lesser punishment was the factual position which has been set out in para 12 of the judgment. That was thus :--- "To begin with, as pointed out above, multiple injuries were received by the deceased persons which were caused by blunt weapons like lathi and are of minor character. Furthermore, the injuries are not on any vital parts of the body and even those which are on the scalp portion appear to be very superficial. That was thus :--- "To begin with, as pointed out above, multiple injuries were received by the deceased persons which were caused by blunt weapons like lathi and are of minor character. Furthermore, the injuries are not on any vital parts of the body and even those which are on the scalp portion appear to be very superficial. There is nothing to show that the accused intended to cause the deliberate murder of the two deceased persons. There is no evidence to show that any of the accused ordered the killing of the deceased persons or incited or in any way expressed a desire to kill the deceased persons at the spot." It was in these circumstances that the Court reversed the conviction from 302 I.P.C. to that falling under section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. In the instant case, the position is entirely different. The victim was taken unawares and the offender seized by a frenzy went on battering him with a fearsome knife. As many as 10 blows were struck and it was with some difficulty that he could be made to let go of the weapon. Two or three of the injuries were sufficient in themselves to occasion death. Dr. Pherwani has said so and his assertion stands unchallenged. The principle of the authority relied upon by the learned Counsel is not attracted to the facts of this case. 7. Mr. Peshave lastly argues that the Sessions Judge has taken a probable view of the matter and we sitting in appeal should not reverse him. The limits of the appellant jurisdiction are well known. A Court of appeal will be slow to disturb an acquittal merely because it is of a different opinion than that which commended itself to the trial Court. This however does not mean that the trial Court can escape unscatched when the view taken by it is perverse. That is exactly what the learned Sessions Judge has done in the instant case. To the facts which attracted the charge of murder, the learned trial Judge has applied the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The reasons given for taking that view are contradictory and extremely irrational. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the state has to be allowed. Hence the order : ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 1987 allowed. To the facts which attracted the charge of murder, the learned trial Judge has applied the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The reasons given for taking that view are contradictory and extremely irrational. Therefore, the appeal preferred by the state has to be allowed. Hence the order : ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 1987 allowed. Respondent Prakash Hiraman Hingane is convicted of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appeal preferred by Prakash Hiraman Hingane assailing the conviction and sentence recorded against him, fails, and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----