JUDGMENT (ORAL) S.S. Dani, J. - The appellant-accused challenges the order dated 28-2-1990 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 294 of 1989 holding the appellant - accused guilty for offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I for 6 months and holding him guilty for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default S.I. for 3 months. 2. The facts giving rise to the trial and this appeal are thus: Deceased Subhash Fulari, the husband of P.W. 4 Bhimabai was originally from village Devar-Nimbargi. Bhimabai got married with deceased Subhash about 14 years ago and she started residing with her husband at Sangameshwar Nagar, Solapur. Deceased Subhash was in the service of Solapur Spinning Mills. P.W. 10-Padmabai Basappa is the wife of the present accused and she is the sister of P.W. 4 - Bhimabai. Padmabai got married to the accused about 10 years ago and got a male child from the said wedlock. It is alleged that formerly Padmabai was residing at village Shilwantwadi in Karnataka State along with the accused, and the accused was working as a coolie but after some days the accused left that work and insisted Padmabai to do the work of a prostitute which she flatly refused. Because of this, Padmabai started residing with her brother and sister. The accused also shifted to Solapur and started doing the work as a coolie. P.W. 4 Bhimabai some days prior to present incident was admitted in the maternity home at Solapur and for doing the household work she had called P.W. 10 - Padmabai to her house and as such Padmabai was staying in the house of the accused. It is alleged that in the period of one month prior to the incident the accused used to ask deceased Subhash to send Padmabai to him for cohabitation which was refused on the ground that she was brought from the house of her brother and, therefore, he will send her back to the house of her brother, and if her brother Ramanna has no objection the accused should receive her from the house of her brother. The accused developed suspicion about the illicit relationship between his wife Padmabai and deceased Subhash. Bhimabai delivered a male child but he did not survive. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place in the early morning between 4.30 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. on 4-9-1989 in the house of Bhimabai at Sangameshwar Nagar, Solapur. P.W.4 - Bhimabai, P.W. 10 - Padmabai and her two children were asleep inside the room and in the same room deceased Subhash had retired to bed near the wall. The electric bulb was burning in the room. The accused then knocked the door at that time. P.W. 8 - Prakash Chindarkar resides in front of the house of Bhimabai and he got up from the sleep and asked the accused as to how he had come at such an odd time. He was then told by the accused that he had attended a programme of bhajan. On hearing the knocks at the door, deceased Subhash got up from the sleep and opened the door and the accused entered into-the room and the door was then latched from inside. Deceased Subhash then retired to bed on the quilt while the accused sat near his head and asked deceased Subhash why Padmabai was not being sent to him. Deceased Subhash gave the same answer whereupon the accused got enraged and took out a dagger (Article 5) kept concealed near his waist and he gave a blow with it on the chest of deceased Subhash. When deceased Subhash attempted to get up from the bed, the accused gave another blow on his back because of which Subhash fell down and died instantaneously. P.W. 10 - Padmabai and P.W.4 - Bhimabai had awakened on hearing the talk between the deceased and the accused and they both saw the accused assaulting deceased Subhash with a dagger. P.W. 4 - Bhimabai started raising shouts and rushed to open the door so as to run away but she was unsuccessful and she got blow on her right arm and right scapular region with the same weapon at the instance of the accused .P.W. 10 Padmabai also tried to intervene and also raised shouts. She also came to be assaulted by the accused on her head because of which she also sustained injuries. The accused however managed to run away. She also came to be assaulted by the accused on her head because of which she also sustained injuries. The accused however managed to run away. P.W. 8 - Prakash on hearing the shouts also came out and saw accused running away with a dagger in his hand. P.W. 8 - Prakash then started chasing the accused. Two police constables including P.W. 11 - Satish Deshpande who were on patrolling duty were told about the accused by P.W. 8 - Prakash and they all started following the accused. The accused reached Yeshwant Co-operative Spinning Mill and entered into its compound. P.W. 12 - Narsingh Rajput who was on duty as a watchman of the said Mill, also helped the constables and P.W. 8 Prakash to accost the accused. The accused was ultimately caught by those persons and he was found to have a dagger in his hand. The accused was then brought to the police station. Before that a telephone call was sent to the police station and P.W.4 –Bhimabai and P.W.10 -Padmabai, being injured, were sent to the Civil Hospital where P.W. 5 - Dr. Suhas Ganu examined and treated them. P.W. 14 - Bhau Sinnarkar, PSI of the concerned police station then recorded the complaint of P.W. 4 - Bhimabai as per her narration Exhibit 25 and the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., were then registered. The scene of offence was visited and the panchanama Exhibit 21 and the inquest panchanama Exhibit 9 were drawn. Dead body of Subhash was then sent for post mortem examination. The various blood stained articles were attached at the scene of offence under panchanama Exhibits 10 and 11 including the clothes of the deceased and the accused. The accused was also arrested under panchanama Exhibit 23 and the blood stained clothes and the dagger were attached. The articles were sent to C.A. and the Reports Exhibits 14 to 16 were duly received. On completion of the investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted for the alleged offences under sections 302 and 307, I.P.C., and he stood his trial in Sessions Case No. 294 of 1989 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried and his defence is of total denial. On completion of the investigation, the accused came to be charge sheeted for the alleged offences under sections 302 and 307, I.P.C., and he stood his trial in Sessions Case No. 294 of 1989 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried and his defence is of total denial. On considering the evidence on record, the Additional Sessions Judge held the death of Subhash as homicidal and further accepted the prosecution evidence as reliable and trustworthy and held him guilty for the offence of murder under section 302, I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence on record, however, held that the offence under section 307, was not proved against the accused and the accused was answerable only to the offence under section 324, I.P.C. By an order dated 28-2-1990 the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. It is against this order that the accused has filed this appeal. 3. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution in detail. The prosecution has adduced the evidence of as many as 14 witnesses, but it mainly relies on the sworn testimony of three eye witnesses, viz, P.W. 4 - Bhimabai, P.W. 10 - Padmabai and P.W. 8. – Prakash. In addition to this evidence, the prosecution also relies on further corroborating circumstances in the shape of arrest of the accused immediately after the incident and the presence of blood on his clothes and the weapon of assault. The Additional Sessions Judge has held the evidence of these three eye witnesses as trustworthy and reliable. It is not in dispute that P.W. 4 - Bhimabai is the wife of deceased Subhash and the sister of P.W. 10 Padmabai. It is also not in dispute that at the time of the incident these two sisters and the deceased along with their kids had retired to bed in the same room. P.W.4 – Bhimabai and P.W.10 - Padmabai have stated in their respective evidence that at the early morning deceased Subhash, on hearing the knocks at the door, opened the door and the accused stepped into the room. These sisters have further deposed that at that time the electric bulb was burning in the room and the accused occupied the seat near the head of the deceased and the accused was insisting that Padmabai be sent along with him. These sisters have further deposed that at that time the electric bulb was burning in the room and the accused occupied the seat near the head of the deceased and the accused was insisting that Padmabai be sent along with him. It is further in their evidence that deceased Subhash told the accused that as Padmabai was brought from the house of her brother, she could be sent only with his permission. Both these sisters then further stated on oath that thereupon the accused stood up and took out a dagger from his waist and then assaulted Subhash on his chest. These two sisters further deposed that on receiving the blow Subhash tried to get up from the bed but the accused again inflicted a blow on his back and Subhash fell down on the ground with serious bleeding injuries and died instantaneously. It is further in their evidence that on seeing this assault, they both raised shouts and tried to run out of the house but the accused inflicted blows on their persons also. These two sisters finally stated that they came out of the house and raised hue and cry and P.W. 8 - Prakash then came out of the house and he chased the accused. The evidence of these two sisters P. W. 4 - Bhimabai and P.W. 10 - Padmabai has remained unshattered in the cross examination. Nothing has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the sworn testimony of these two sisters. They are admittedly inmates of the house and are near relatives. They were also in the same room and as such the presence of these two sisters at the place and time of the incident is most natural. None of these two sisters has any grievance against the present accused so as to involve him falsely. The incident in detail including the involvement of the accused as the assailant has been narrated by these two sisters on oath in a most natural and straight forward manner. The evidence of these two eye witnesses is not only consistent and supporting each other, but also does not suffer from any exaggeration, artificialness or contradiction. Both are emphatic in their evidence that it is the accused who has inflicted the blows on the chest and back of deceased Subhash. The evidence of these two eye witnesses is not only consistent and supporting each other, but also does not suffer from any exaggeration, artificialness or contradiction. Both are emphatic in their evidence that it is the accused who has inflicted the blows on the chest and back of deceased Subhash. As it is not shattered in the evidence in respect of availability of light in the room at the time of the incident, the possibility of any of these two ladies in committing any mistake in identifying the assailant has been completely ruled out. It may also be noted that the accused after entering into the room had a talk with deceased Subhash and it is, therefore, natural for these two ladies to wake up from the sleep on hearing the knocks at the door and also the talk between Subhash and the accused. The evidence of these two ladies is, therefore, most natural and artless and is sufficient to inspire the confidence. The Additional Sessions Judge, in our view, is perfectly right and justified in keeping reliance on the evidence of these two eye witnesses for holding the appellant-accused guilty of the alleged offence. Further both P.W. 4 - Bhimabai and P.W. 10 - Padmabai are the injured ladies and as per their evidence and the evidence of P.W. 5 - Dr. Ganu (Exhibit 24) together with the Medical Certificate (Exhibits 34 and 35), they have received the blows at the hands of the present accused. The sworn testimony of these two ladies in respect of the incident and the, involvement of the accused as killer of deceased Subhash is, therefore, further corroborated by the fact that these two ladies had received the injuries at the time of the incident and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is, therefore, right in keeping reliance on the sworn testimony of these two eye witnesses in respect of the whole incident. 4. In addition to the evidence of these two eye witnesses, the prosecution has also adduced the evidence of P. W. 8 - Prakash (Exhibit 39). The witness stays in front of the house of the deceased and as such on oath he stated that he had retired to bed in front of his own house at the time of the incident and at an early hours he noticed the accused knocking the door of deceased Subhash. The witness stays in front of the house of the deceased and as such on oath he stated that he had retired to bed in front of his own house at the time of the incident and at an early hours he noticed the accused knocking the door of deceased Subhash. It is further in his evidence that he himself made the injury with the accused as to how he came there at an odd hour. It is further stated on oath by the witness that he heard the shouts and hue and cry of Bhimabai and Padmabai and he then saw the accused running away and then he started chasing the accused. It is further stated that he also met two police constables including P.W. 11 - Satish Deshpande and all of them chased the accused and ultimately accosted him in the campus of the spinning mill. P.W. 12 - Narsingh Rajput is a watchman of the spinning mill and he has also stated in his evidence that the accused with a weapon in his hand entered into the campus and he along with P.W. 8 - Prakash accosted the accused and the accused was then taken to the police station by P.W. 11- Satish Deshpande. The evidence of P.W. 8 - Prakash has also not been shattered in cross examination and nothing material has been brought on record so as to disbelieve his sworn testimony. The witness admittedly is a next door neighbour and it is but natural for him to recognise the cries and shouts of Bhimabai and Padmabai and also to chase the accused when he noticed him running away with a dagger in his hand. The evidence of P.W. 8 - Prakash has, therefore, been rightly believed and it sufficiently and materially corroborates the story of the prosecution. The Additional Sessions Judge is, therefore, right in holding the evidence of these three witnesses as sufficient to involve the accused as the assailant and to prove the authorship of the injuries on the deceased and the two ladies against the accused. 5. In addition to this evidence, it may also be noted that as per the evidence of P.W. 8 - Prakash, P.W. 11 Satish Deshpande and P.W. 12 Narsingh Rajput, the accused came to be accosted and apprehended in the campus of the spinning mill with a weapon in his hand. 5. In addition to this evidence, it may also be noted that as per the evidence of P.W. 8 - Prakash, P.W. 11 Satish Deshpande and P.W. 12 Narsingh Rajput, the accused came to be accosted and apprehended in the campus of the spinning mill with a weapon in his hand. It has also been noticed by these witnesses that the clothes of the accused were stained with blood. The accused had been accosted and caught immediately after the incident and this material circumstance has also been rightly considered in favour of the prosecution. Further it may be noted that various articles including the clothes of the deceased and the accused and the weapon of attack have been examined by the C.A. and the necessary reports are placed on record at Exhibits 14 and 16. As per the said reports, the blood group of Padmabai was found to be ‘A’ while that of Bhimabai as ‘AB’. Articles 3 and 4 were the clothes of the accused while articles 11 and 12 were of the deceased. As per the said reports articles 11 and 12 were found stained with blood of 'A' group and the same blood was noticed on the dagger. The presence of blood on the clothes of the accused and the weapon of attack has also been rightly considered by the trial Court as material corroboration to the story of the prosecution. The evidence of the eye witnesses together with the corroborative circumstances in the shape of the immediate arrest of the accused along with the weapon and the presence of blood on his clothes and the dagger are, therefore, sufficient to inspire the confidence and the conviction based on this evidence cannot, therefore, be said to be either illegal or wrong. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R in the present case. It may however be noted that it is in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that when P.W. 4 - Bhimabai was out of her giddiness in the hospital and was in a position to give the statement, the complaint came to be recorded. As a matter of fact, there is no inordinate delay and whatever delay was there, it has been properly explained by the prosecution. As a matter of fact, there is no inordinate delay and whatever delay was there, it has been properly explained by the prosecution. It is then submitted on behalf of the appellant that the injury on the person of the accused was not explained by the prosecution and as such it is a fatal blow to the case. It is no doubt true that even though in the evidence of Investigating Officer it is stated that he noticed the injuries on the fore-head and to the finger of a foot and he sent the accused for medical treatment, there is no medical certificate on record to prove the nature of the said injuries. It may however, be noted that it was suggested by the defence itself that the accused had sustained abrasion on his fore-head and a minor injury to his toe finger. It is, therefore, clear that even according to the defence itself the injuries sustained by the accused were minor injuries. The submissions on behalf of the appellant-accused in this respect, therefore, cannot be upheld. The Additional Sessions Judge, in view of this evidence on record, was therefore, in our view, right in holding that deceased Subhash died a homicidal death be cause of the injuries with a dagger at the hands of the none else than the present accused. The authorship for the said injuries and death of Subhash has been rightly held as duly proved against the present appellant. The offence of murder punishable under section 302, I.P.C. has, therefore, been rightly held as brought Safely to the home of the accused mid the accused has been rightly convicted for it. The accused also stood charged for the offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under section 307, I.P.C. in respect of the injuries caused to P.W. 4 - Bhimabai and P.W. 10 - Padmabai. The authorship for these injuries at the hands of the accused has been satisfactorily proved by the believable sworn testimony of these two Indies themselves together with the medical evidence on record as stated above. It has been amply proved that these two ladies sustained the injuries at the hands of the accused when they tried to get out of the room on noticing the dreadful incident of assault on Subhash by the accused with a dagger. These two ladies have been medically examined by Dr. It has been amply proved that these two ladies sustained the injuries at the hands of the accused when they tried to get out of the room on noticing the dreadful incident of assault on Subhash by the accused with a dagger. These two ladies have been medically examined by Dr. Ganu and the certificates are placed on record at Exhibits 34 and 35. P.W. 4 - Bhimabai sustained two incised penetratic wounds on her right arm and right scapular region and admittedly no fractural injuries were noticed. Similarly, P.W. 10 - Padmabai sustained two incised wounds on her fore-head and right side of scalp and no fractural injuries were noticed. As per the certificates Exhibits 34 and 35 the injuries sustained by these two ladies have been found to be simple in nature. It is also in the evidence of Medical Officer that both of these injuries have been caused by a dagger. Considering the simple nature of the injuries, its location and the nature of the weapon used in the attack by the accused, the Additional Sessions Judge, in our opinion, was right in holding that the offence under section 307, I.P.C. was not duly proved. Inasmuch as the injuries sustained by these two ladies were simple in nature but with a dangerous weapon, the offence under section 324, I.P.C. was right held as proved against the present appellant-accused. The Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, rightly justified in holding the appellant accused guilty of the said offence under section 324, I.P.C. and in awarding the aforesaid sentence. The order of conviction and sentence is, therefore, proper and legal and calls for no interference against the present appellant accused. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 500 of 1990 is hereby dismissed. The order dated 28-2-1990 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 294 of 1989 holding him guilty for the offences under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months, and further holding him guilty under section 324, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for 3 months, is hereby confirmed and maintained. Appeal dismissed.