JUDGMENT - GUNDEWAR S.D., J.:---The criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15-2-99 passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 390/98, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, to undergone further R.I. for 3 months. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that in the year 1998, the victim Shivchand alias Shivcharan Shyamji Latkar (P.W. 1) was in the employment of one Sharma Kahar on daily wages and used to work as a watchman at Water Tank, Kandri Mines. On 15-4-98 at about 7.00 or 7.15 p.m. when the victim Shivcharan was standing on a hillock in front of the house of one Mohan Yadav, the accused went there and demanded fish from the victim Shivcharan. The victim told the accused that he did not have fish. Thereupon the accused asked the victim as to why he was not giving fish to him and by saying so, he inflicted knife blows on the left shoulder, back was stomach of the victim as a result of which the victim sustained bleeding injuries on his left shoulder, back and stomach. Jitendra Chawre and Dilip Bansod, who were then present there, removed the victim Shivcharan to the Cottage Hospital at Ramtek in a autorickshaw, where he was treated by Dr. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2), who on examination found in all 7 stab wounds on the person of the victim Shivcharan. She therefore, informed the Police Station, Ramtek about the same on telephone. P.S.I. Ghanshyam Dixit (P.W. 10) who was then present in the Police Station Ramtek, received the said phone message. He took its entry in the Station Diary and proceeded to the Cottage Hospital and recorded the statement of victim Shivcharan after verifying from the Medical Officer on duty that the victim Shivcharan was conscious and was in a position to make the statement. Thereafter as per the advise of the Medical Officer, Ramtek, the victim Shivcharan was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur along with Police Constable B.No. 295. P.S.I. Dixit then returned to the Police Station, Ramtek and lodged F.I.R. (Exh. Thereafter as per the advise of the Medical Officer, Ramtek, the victim Shivcharan was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur along with Police Constable B.No. 295. P.S.I. Dixit then returned to the Police Station, Ramtek and lodged F.I.R. (Exh. 41) in the matter on the basis of the statement of victim Shivcharan and registered an offence as Crime No. 69/98 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and made the investigation. 3. On 16-4-98, P.S.I. Dixit visited the spot and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh. 37). On the same day he recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and seized the blood stained clothes of the victim Shivcharan under seizure memo (Exh. 21). On 19-4-98, P.S.I. Dixit had seized one iron spear having wooden handle from the accused at his instance under seizure panchanama (Exh. 22). On the same day he had seized the clothes of the accused under seizure memo (Exh. 25). The accused was then sent to Cottage Hospital, Ramtek for Medical examination. The Medical Officer examined the accused and collected the sample of his blood. All the seized article were then sent to Chemical Analyser, Nagpur for analysis, whose reports are produced at Exhibits 17 and 18. As such, on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek. On commitment, the charge (Exh. 4) was framed by the trial Court against the accused under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence was one of total denial and false implication. 4. To bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses including the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1), Lady Medical Officer (P.W. 2) and Investigating Officer (P.W. 10). 5. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as stated above. 6. Shri Pardhy, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused urged before me that the evidence of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1) does not inspire confidence as his evidence is not corroborated by the independent witnesses who turned hostile. 6. Shri Pardhy, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused urged before me that the evidence of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1) does not inspire confidence as his evidence is not corroborated by the independent witnesses who turned hostile. According to him, even the victim Shivcharan has not supported the prosecution case in its entirety, and therefore, the learned trial Judge erred in accepting his evidence and convicting the appellant/accused under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Shri A.S. Fulzele, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in relying upon the evidence of victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1), lady Medical Officer (P.W. 2) and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) and convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the bar, I have carefully perused the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and scrutinised the evidence in detail. 9. P.W. 1 Shivcharan Latkar has stated that about 5 to 6 months back, one day in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. the accused gave knife blows on his shoulder, back and stomach due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. He was, therefore, removed to Ramtek Hospital and then shifted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur for treatment. During his cross-examination by the learned A.P.P. he stated that the accused demanded fish and as he had no fish with him, he could not give fish to the accused due to which the accused got annoyed and assaulted him with knife. It is also stated by him that Jitendra and Dilip took him to Ramtek Hospital in an authorickshaw, where Police Officer had recorded his statement (Exh. 19) and according to him, all the facts stated by him in the said statement are correct. It is, no doubt, true that during his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that on the day of the incident, the accused did not demand fish. It appears from his evidence that he is short of hearing, and therefore, hearing aid was provided to him when his evidence was being recorded. It is, no doubt, true that during his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he has stated that on the day of the incident, the accused did not demand fish. It appears from his evidence that he is short of hearing, and therefore, hearing aid was provided to him when his evidence was being recorded. Therefore, it seems that as he could not hear the question put to him in this behalf by the learned Counsel for the accused during his cross-examination properly, he deposed that on the day of incident accused did not demand fish, otherwise there was no reason for him to give such evidence, particularly when during the cross-examination by the learned A.P.P. He has in very clear terms told the Court that the accused demanded fish and as he had no fish, he could not give the same to the accused, due to which the accused got annoyed and assaulted him. Even assuming that P.W. 1 Shivcharan has stated during his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused that on the day of the incident accused did not demand fish, in my view, that by itself is not sufficient to discard his entire testimony particularly when there is nothing in his evidence either by way of contradiction or material omission, which would go to discredit him. 10. This evidence of P.W. 1 Shivcharan find corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 4 Prakash Bansod, who has admitted during his cross-examination that Shivcharan informed him that he was injured by accused with knife. According to him, Shivcharan had also informed the police about the same in his presence. It is, no doubt, true that this witness P.W. 4 Prakash Bansod has turned hostile, but it is now the established principle that the evidence of prosecution witness who has been declared hostile should not be thrown overboard on the ground that his evidence cannot be relied upon. That much of the evidence of the hostile witness can be relied upon by the prosecution which is in conformity with other evidence. For this, a reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in (Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. The State of Maharashtra)1, in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2622. That much of the evidence of the hostile witness can be relied upon by the prosecution which is in conformity with other evidence. For this, a reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in (Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. The State of Maharashtra)1, in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2622. So keeping in view the aforesaid principle, I find that the evidence of P.W. 4 Prakash Bansod which is in conformity with the evidence of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1) can very well be relied upon and in my view, this evidence of P.W. 1 Prakash Bansod fully supports the version of victim P.W. 1 Shivcharan on the point of assault. As this witness has admitted during his cross-examination that P.W. 1 Shivcharan informed him that he was injured by the accused with knife, I, find that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in accepting the evidence of victim P.W. 1 Shivcharan and that of P.W. 4 Prakash Bansod. 11. I also find that the manner of incident given out by P.W. 1 Shivcharan is corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2) has deposed that she had examined P.W. 1 Shivcharan on 15-4-98 at about 8.00 p.m. and noticed the following injuries on his person: 1. Stab wound 1 cm. in length and 1 cm. deep, situated over left shoulder. 2. Stab wound over left elbow ½ cm. in length, 1 cm. deep. 3. Stab wound over 7th intercostal space, left side anteriorily over chest, size ½ cm. 1 cm. deep. 4. Stab wound over 7th intercostal space, left side posteriorily on back, size ½ cm. in length and ½ cm. deep. 5. Stab wound over 9th rib left side ½ cm. in length ½ cm. deep. 6. Stab wound over area just below the umblicus ½ cm. in length ½ cm. deep. 7. Stab wound over left eliac crest size ½ cm. in length and ½ cm. deep. According to Dr. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2) injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 sustained by P.W. 1 Shivcharan were grievous and life threatening. It is also deposed by her that had the victim Shivcharan did not receive medical-aid in time, he would have not survived. This version of Dr. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2) clearly goes to show that injury Nos. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2) injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 sustained by P.W. 1 Shivcharan were grievous and life threatening. It is also deposed by her that had the victim Shivcharan did not receive medical-aid in time, he would have not survived. This version of Dr. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2) clearly goes to show that injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 sustained by P.W. 1 Shivcharan were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Nothing has come out from the cross-examination of this witness to dispute her aforesaid version. I, therefore, find that the medical evidence on record supports the version of P.W. 1 Shivcharan. 12. In addition to what has been discussed above clearly establishing the complicity of the accused regarding the offence in question, there is circumstantial evidence on record which supports the prosecution case. The evidence of panch Ramlal Agrawal (P.W. 3) and the Investigating Officer P.S.I. Ghanshyam Dixit (P.W. 10) clearly goes to show that gupti (article 7) came to be recovered at the instance of the accused. Dr. (Mrs.) Naseem Akhtar (P.W. 2) to whom the said weapon was sent for examination, opined vide Exhibit 14 that the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 Shivcharan are possible by the said weapon. This, in my view, is a circumstance which favours the prosecution and goes against the accused. 13. Further, it has come in the evidence of panch Ramlal Agrawal (P.W. 3) and Investigating Officer P.S.I. Ghanshyam Dixit (P.W. 10) that the blood stained clothes of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1), the blood stained clothes of the accused, the blood stained weapon and blood samples of victim Shivcharan and that of the accused were seized under different seizure memos. The evidence of Investigating Officer P.S.I. Ghanshyam Dixit (P.W. 10) further goes to show that all the aforesaid seized articles were sent to Chemical Analyser, Nagpur or analysis. The reports of the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur are produced at Exhibits 17 and 18. It is clear from these reports that the clothes of the victim Shivcharan, torn shirt of the accused and weapon i.e. knife were stained with blood of Group 'B', which is the blood group of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1). The reports of the Chemical Analyser, Nagpur are produced at Exhibits 17 and 18. It is clear from these reports that the clothes of the victim Shivcharan, torn shirt of the accused and weapon i.e. knife were stained with blood of Group 'B', which is the blood group of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1). The accused was unable to explain as to how his torn shirt and the weapon i.e. knife recovered at his instance were stained with blood of group 'B', which is the blood group of the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1). In the absence of the same, in my view, that is a very clinching piece of evidence which goes against the accused. 14. The evidence of Shivcharan (P.W. 1) clearly goes to show that the accused demanded fish from him and as he had no fish, he could not give it to the accused due to which the accused got annoyed. This clearly indicates that the accused nurtured a grievance against the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1) as he could not give fish to him and this seems to be the motive behind the commission of the crime in question. 15. The aforesaid discussion thus makes it clear that on the day of the incident, the appellant/accused demanded fish from the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1) and as he could not give the same to him, he assaulted the victim Shivcharan (P.W. 1) with a knife on his shoulder, back and stomach and thereby attempted to commit his murder as the injury Nos. 3, 4 and 5 sustained by Shivcharan (P.W. 1) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 16. Considering the entire evidence on record, in my view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in holding the involvement of the appellant/accused in the offence in question. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused are confirmed. The appellant accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal appeal dismissed. -----