JUDGMENT (ORAL) S.W. Puranik, J.- The appellant stands convicted for an offence under Section 304-Part I of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, further rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appellant, through Jail, has preferred this Appeal and the same has been argued on his behalf by Shri S.S. Kantak, Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme. The State is represented by Shri G.U. Bhobe, Public Prosecutor. With the assistance of the learned counsel of both the parties, I have gone through the entire case records. 2. In order to appreciate the submissions, it would be necessary to narrate the incident briefly. It is alleged by the prosecution that one fishing trawler by name "Carla Mariaza" was on their routine sorty for fishing on the night intervening 1st and 2nd November, 1988 and were returning to the beach at Miramar in the small hours of 2nd November, 1988 at about 3.00 a.m. 3. There were about fifteen employees or Khalasis on board and some of them were sleeping in the cabin Tuko Pagi (P.W.1), Tukaram Pagi (P.W.3). Manjunath Ambe (P.W.5), Santosh Harmalkar (P.W.7) and Ganpat Ambe (P.W.8) were some of the Khalasis who were in the cabin, at the material time. At about 3.00 a.m., the accused Anthony alias Ravikumar intended to sleep in the cabin on a bench. Under the bench, Narayan, the deceased, was also sleeping. In order to destroy the bugs on the bench, the appellant brought hot water and started pouring the same on the bench. The hot water also fell on the person of Narayan who was sleeping below the bench. This annoyed Narayan and he got up and started abusing the accused. In order to retaliate the abuses, the accused threw the remaining hot water along with the pot on the deceased Narayan which resulted in scalding injuries on his face, forehead, etc., The accused is then alleged to have gone out of the cabin and from somewhere brought a large knife, usually used for cleaning and cutting fish and stabbed Narayan on his chest only once. The knife had a blade of 8 centimeters length and a sharp edge. The injury was deep cutting through the pericardium and lungs, resulting in profuse bleeding and Narayan died almost instantaneously. The knife had a blade of 8 centimeters length and a sharp edge. The injury was deep cutting through the pericardium and lungs, resulting in profuse bleeding and Narayan died almost instantaneously. Witness Tuko (P.W.1) realising the gravity of the situation, intimated the tandel immediately to take the trawler to the beach. Within minutes, the trawler landed at the beach and Tuko (P.W.1) rushed to the Police Station and lodged his First Information Report which is Exhibit P.W.1/A. Police Party arrived on the trawler and the accused was arrested. It appears that the accused had disposed of the knife some where which could not be traced. The dead body of Narayan was sent for post-mortem. The autopsy was carried over the body by Dr. Poornanand (P.W.10) and his Report is at Exhibit P.W.10/A. The clothes of the deceased and those of the accused were also forwarded for chemical analysis and the report thereof is at P.W.10/B and P.W.10/C. Blood sample of the deceased as well as of the accused was sent for analysis for grouping. The report is at P.W.10/D and P.W.10/E. P.W.2 Rosario was the witness for the inquest panchanama as well as for the panchanama of the scene of offence. P.W. 13, P.S.I. David Lobo, was the Investigating Officer. During the trial, the accused took the plea that the death of the deceased Narayan was accidental inasmuch as after the incident of hot water falling on Narayan, there ensued a scuffle between Narayan and the accused and during the scuffle, the deceased fell on the sharp point of the anchor which pierced his chest resulting in his death, In short, he denied the allegation of having stabbed Narayan on the chest with the knife. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, after the entire trial and examination of the accused, found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt the convicted and sentenced him as stated at the opening paragraph. 5. Shri Kantak argued that it is admitted situation that there was hardly any light in the cabin and, in fact, two or three witnesses have referred to a torch used by the accused whilst stabbing the deceased. If that be so, according to Mr. Kantak, the incident could not have been witnessed by the so-called eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8. If that be so, according to Mr. Kantak, the incident could not have been witnessed by the so-called eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8. In the alternative, he submitted that the theory proposed by the accused is more reasonable and probable as emerging from the prosecution evidence itself, and hence, no offence, much less one under Section 304 I.P.C., is committed by the appellant. 6. Shri Bhobe, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and urged that the eye witnesses account has been properly appreciated by the Sessions Court which is duly corroborated by the First Information Report as well as the medical evidence. 7. Certain facts cannot be disputed, namely, that of the eye witnesses as well as the accused and the deceased were working together since some months on the said fishing trawler in a routine manner and that there was no enemity amongst themselves. It is to be noted that the deceased and the accused were using Hindi dialect which was not understood by many of the other Khalasis who are the eye witnesses. It also cannot be disputed that the complaint has been lodged by P.W.1. Tuko within forty minutes of the incident. It was at his instance that the trawler was immediately berthed on the beach and he himself rushed to the Police Station to lodge the Report. The incident thus was fresh in his mind when the Report was lodged and, after a year or so at the trial, the complainant has corroborated his First Information Report in toto. The medical evidence of Dr. Poornanand and, the post-mortem report indicating the matter of stab injury sustained by the deceased lends positive corroboration to the eye witness account of the Informant. Besides this, the other eye witnesses P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have also corroborated in a very natural and coherent manner. Very insignificant discrepancies in their testimonies were pointed out by the appellant, but instead of destroying the validity of their evidence, in my opinion, they lend support to the authenticity of their version inasmuch as it is natural to have a slightly different version of every situation that people see and observe. Very insignificant discrepancies in their testimonies were pointed out by the appellant, but instead of destroying the validity of their evidence, in my opinion, they lend support to the authenticity of their version inasmuch as it is natural to have a slightly different version of every situation that people see and observe. It depends on the power of observation and memory of every individual while narrating the incident There is always a propensity to either suppress or to exaggerate a particular incident according to one's attitude. Thus, having an overall approach to the question of appreciation of evidence, I am satisfied that the conclusion reached by tl1e learned Sessions Judge in holding the accused responsible for intentionally causing the stab injury upon the chest of the deceased is correct. 8. In the alternative, it was urged by the appellant that there is likelihood of a scuffle having taken place in view of the abuses exchanged and the fact that the deceased may have fallen on the sharp point of the anchor. Unfortunately however, this suggestion has been totally discarded by the medical expert Dr. Poornanand, P.W.10 as impossible in view of the nature of the injury and he has further ascertained that the injury could be caused only by a sharp edged knife. Moreover, this very suggestion to the eye witnesses has been denied as untrue. In the light of these circumstances, the theory of accidental death would not arise. 9. Lastly, it was contended that the incident had taken place in a certain quarrel in the heat of the moment, and as such, the offence committed by the accused was of a lesser degree and may be punishable under Part II of Section 304 I.P .C. I am unable to agree with this submission for the reason that the anger or heat of passion even if it had aroused when abuses were hurled at the accused yet accused had immediately retaliated by throwing hot water along with pot on the deceased immediately. It is there after that the accused went out of the cabin, procured a knife and re-entered the cabin with the sole intention of causing a stab injury on the vital part of his body. In these circumstances, the offence would not be covered by Part II of Section 304 I.P.C. 10. It is there after that the accused went out of the cabin, procured a knife and re-entered the cabin with the sole intention of causing a stab injury on the vital part of his body. In these circumstances, the offence would not be covered by Part II of Section 304 I.P.C. 10. For all these reasons, the Order and Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed. The Appeal being without any merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.