JUDGMENT - TAHILRAMANI V.K., J.:---Through this appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 27th July, 1998, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1158 of 1995. By the said judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : The deceased Ganesh Pujari was the owner of a Canteen by name Ganesh Tea House, Ganesh Tea Stall was situated at Andheri (E). The complainant P.W. 1 Ashok Shankar Bhosale was working as a waiter in Ganesh Tea House. At the material time, the wife of Ganesh Pujari had gone to her native place and the complainant Ashok Bhosale was residing with Ganesh Pujari at his house. The incident in question took place on 7th May, 1995 at about 4.30 to 5.00 p.m. On the previous day i.e. on 6th May, 1995 at about noon time, the appellant Chandra Devadiga came to Ganesh Pujari. He was seeking a job from Ganesh Pujari, Ganesh Pujari asked the appellant Chandra to come on duty on 7th May, 1995. However, the appellant came to the hotel along with his baggage on 6th May, 1995 itself. On the night of 6th May, 1995, P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale prepared meals for himself, his employer Ganesh Pujari, appellant and one Padamsingh Nepali who also used to work in the canteen of Ganesh Pujari. All of them took meal at about 10.00 p.m. After taking the meals, Padamsingh left the room for his personal work. The complainant and deceased Ganesh Pujari slept on the floor and the appellant was asked to sleep on the cot. 3. All of a sudden at about 5 a.m. on 7th May, 1995, the complainant Ashok heard shouts and cries of deceased Ganesh Pujari. Ashok got up and put on the lights. He saw appellant Chandra holding a knife which was by the side of the chest of the deceased. There was bleeding injury on the chest of the deceased. Ashok tried to catch the appellant, however, the appellant gave a dash to Ashok due to which he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from that place. Ashok Bhosale went to the deceased but he found that deceased was not in a position to speak. There was bleeding injury on the chest of the deceased. Ashok tried to catch the appellant, however, the appellant gave a dash to Ashok due to which he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant ran away from that place. Ashok Bhosale went to the deceased but he found that deceased was not in a position to speak. On hearing the shouts, the landlord of the room of the deceased came to the room. Thereafter, Ashok Bhosale went to Jogeshwari Police Station and lodged his complaint (Exhibit 7). 4. Thereafter, dead body of Ganesh Pujari was sent for post-mortem. During the post-mortem, following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased : 1. I.W. over right 7th and 8th rib 7 cm long 3 cm width ribs cut horizontally. Opened in cavity upper and sharp lower bluished. Oval in shape. 2. I.W. over left arm laterally 5 cm x 1.5 cm tail at lateral side muscle deep oval in shape. 3. I.W. over left below scapula 7 cm x 20 m oval in shape left scapula out. 4. I.W. over left 7th and 8th ribs muscle deep railing at back side 7 cm x 3 cm size. 5. I.W. over left side of back 2 cm x 1 cm size muscle deep. 6. I.W. over left side of back lateral to scapula 2 cm x 1 cm size muscle deep. 7. I.W. over left shoulder joint at tip 2 cm x 1 cm size muscle deep. 5. On internal examination, it was found that right 7th and 8th ribs were cut due to external injury No. 1. The right and left lung had collapsed. The right lobe of the liver was cut due to external injury No. 1. As per the postmortem notes, the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries (unnatural). 6. The appellant came to be arrested on 26th June, 1995. Thereafter, the blood stained clothes which were on his person at the time of the incident, came to be recovered vide Memorandum and panchanama Exhibits 14 and 14-A. All the articles which came to be seized, were sent to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 7. Thereafter, the blood stained clothes which were on his person at the time of the incident, came to be recovered vide Memorandum and panchanama Exhibits 14 and 14-A. All the articles which came to be seized, were sent to the Chemical Analyser. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 7. The case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner and the appellant came to be charged for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant pleased not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. 8. During the trial, the prosecution has examined; three witnesses. One of them i.e. P.W. 1 Ashok Shankar Bhosale is the complainant who is also an eye-witness to the incident. P.W. 2 Ismile Ramzan Kashmiri is the panch witness who has deposed about the recovery of blood stained clothes at the instance of the appellant-accused which were on the person of the appellant at the time of incident and P.W. 3 Ramdas Laxman Gaikwad is the Investigating Officer. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 of this judgment, hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and we have perused the entire material on record. In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence which clinches the participation of the appellant in the crime. The direct evidence which incriminates the appellant has been furnished by P.W. 1 Ashok Shankar Bhosale and we propose taking it up first. 10. We have set out the prosecution story in para 2 of this judgment on the basis of the recitals contained in the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale. Hence, we do not intend to graphically recount the same in detail because the same would only overburden this judgment. In short P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has stated that one day prior to the day of the incident, at about noon time, the appellant had come to Ganesh Pujari and he was seeking a job from him. Ganesh Pujari asked the appellant to resume his duty from the next day. In short P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has stated that one day prior to the day of the incident, at about noon time, the appellant had come to Ganesh Pujari and he was seeking a job from him. Ganesh Pujari asked the appellant to resume his duty from the next day. On the night of 6th May, 1995 P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale, the appellant and deceased had meals in the house of the deceased. Thereafter, Ashok Bhosale, the deceased Ganesh Pujari and the appellant slept in one room in the house of the deceased. At about 5.00 a.m. Ashok Bhosale heard shouts and cries of the deceased Ganesh Pujari. Ashok Bhosale immediately got up and put on the lights and he saw the appellant giving the last blow on the chest of the deceased. 11. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale, we find that the same inspires confidence. There was sufficient opportunity for P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale to have seen the appellant and hence, there can be no question of mistaken identity. P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has specifically stated that on 6th May, 1995 the appellant had come to the deceased in search of the job and the appellant was with them throughout the day. At the material time i.e. on the night of 6th May, 1995, this witness, the appellant and the deceased had meals together, thereafter they all went to sleep in the same room. There was an electric light in the said room and at 5 a.m. on 7th May, 1995 when Ashok Bhosale heard cries of the deceased, this witness put on the light and saw that the appellant was giving a blow with a knife on the chest of the deceased. 12. It is pertinent to note that at the said time, no other person was there in the room except this witness, the appellant and the deceased. In such circumstances, we feel that Ashok Bhosale had no difficulty in recognising the appellant. Though in the present case, a test identification parade was held in which P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has identified the appellant. In our view, there was no necessity for the same as P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale had sufficient opportunity to observe the appellant. In such circumstances, we feel that Ashok Bhosale had no difficulty in recognising the appellant. Though in the present case, a test identification parade was held in which P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has identified the appellant. In our view, there was no necessity for the same as P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale had sufficient opportunity to observe the appellant. This is specially so because right from the noon of 6th May, 1995 till 5.00 a.m. on 7th May, 1995, the appellant, deceased Ganesh Pujari and P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale were together. 13. The evidence of Ashok Bhosale is corroborated by the medical evidence on record i.e. post-mortem Notes (Exhibit 12). The post-mortem notes have been admitted by the defence under section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The spot-cum-inquest panchanama (Exhibit 10) has also been admitted by the defence under section 294 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The spot panchanama clearly shows that there were blood stains in the house of the deceased. Thus, the manner of assault as deposed by P.W. 2 Ashok Bhosale which is corroborated by the circumstances shows that he has indeed witnessed the incident. 14. The incident took place at about 5.00 a.m. on 7th May, 1995 and the F.I.R. Exhibit 7 was recorded at 5.30 a.m. i.e. the complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale within half an hour of the incident. Looking to the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged within half an hour of the incident, in our view there could not have been any time for the complainant P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale to concoct a case and falsely implicate the appellant. It has to be borne in mind that P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale did not have any enmity, ill-will or any grudge against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in the offence. Thus, in our view, the testimony of P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale can be safely relied upon. 15. One other circumstances which corroborates the testimony of P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale is that P.W. 1 Ashok has stated that immediately after the incident of stabbing, the accused ran away from that place. He has further stated that while running away, the appellant had left weapon i.e. knife (article 1) on the spot. The spot panchanama (Exhibit 10) shows that the knife was found at the scene of offence and the said knife was blood stained. He has further stated that while running away, the appellant had left weapon i.e. knife (article 1) on the spot. The spot panchanama (Exhibit 10) shows that the knife was found at the scene of offence and the said knife was blood stained. The C.A. report Exhibit 17 shows that the knife (article 1) was stained with blood of 'B' group. The blood of the deceased was also sent for analysis. It is true that the C.A. report Exhibit 18 collectively shows that the blood group of the deceased could not be determined and the resulted in relation to the sample of blood of the deceased were inconclusive. However, from the fact that the clothes of the deceased, Chadar and bed-sheet on which the deceased was lying, were found to be stained with blood of 'B' group, it can safely be inferred that the blood group of the deceased was 'B'. As, stated earlier the knife (article 1) also had blood stains of 'B' group. P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has identified the knife (Article 1) as the very knife which was used by the appellant to stab the deceased. 18. In the present case, at the instance of the appellant, his blood stained clothes came to be recovered under memorandum and panchnama Exhibits 14 and 14-A. Panch witness P.W. 2 Ismile Kashmiri has deposed on this aspect. However, in the present case, it is seen that the discovered articles do not show that they have any nexus to the crime in question. Thus, in our opinion, the aspect of recovery of blood stained clothes cannot be held against the appellant in the present case. 17. We would be failing in fairness if we do not refer to the various submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 18. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not in the room of the deceased and in support of this contention, he has relied upon the sentence in the examination-in-chief of Ashok Bhosale wherein, he has stated that "at the time of incident, we two only stayed in the room of Ganesh Pujari". 18. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not in the room of the deceased and in support of this contention, he has relied upon the sentence in the examination-in-chief of Ashok Bhosale wherein, he has stated that "at the time of incident, we two only stayed in the room of Ganesh Pujari". However, it is pertinent to note that immediately thereafter, this witness has stated that the incident took place on 7th May, 1995 at about 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. He has further stated that as that time, besides this witness and Ganesh Pujari, the appellant was also present in the room. Thereafter, P.W. 1 Ashok Bhosale has stated that on 6th May 1995, the appellant had come to Ganesh Pujari to seek a job. Ganesh Pujari gave him a job and on the night of 6th May, 1995 at about 10.00 p.m. witness Ashok, deceased and the appellant all had meals in the house of deceased. Thereafter, Ashok Bhosale, the deceased and the appellant had slept in one room in the house of the deceased. In our view, one sentence in the evidence of Ashok Bhosale cannot be read in isolation but his entire evidence has to be read as a whole. On reading the entire evidence of this witness it is quite clear that at the time of incident, P.W. 1 Ashok the deceased and the appellant were all staying in the room of the deceased Ganesh Pujari. Thus, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant has no merit. 19. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, the F.I.R. has been ante timed. According to him, the F.I.R. must have been recorded sometime after 6.00 or 6.30 a.m. on 7th May, 1995 and not at 5.30 a.m. on 7th May, 1995 as claimed by the prosecution. However, in support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything from the record of this case. Thereafter, it was contended that the F.I.R. was not sent to the Magistrate within the stipulated time as required by law, hence an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. However, again in support of this contention he could not point out anything from the record of this case. Thereafter, it was contended that the F.I.R. was not sent to the Magistrate within the stipulated time as required by law, hence an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. However, again in support of this contention he could not point out anything from the record of this case. Moreover, no question has been put to the Investigating Officer in respect of this contention. Thus, we do not find any merit in the contention. 20. Lastly, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Ganesh Pujari was not examined by the prosecution and hence, an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution. He has further submitted that when the doctor was not examined as a witness, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved that the deceased had died a homicidal death and as such, the appellant cannot be convicted for the murder of Ganesh Pujari. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of (Mst. Dalbir Kaur and others v. State of Punjab)1, reported in 1976 S.C.C.(Cri.) 527 and the decision in the case of (Vijender etc. v. The State of Delhi)2, reported in J.T. 1997(3) S.C. 131. Both the decisions are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, it is to be noted that the defence itself has admitted the post-mortem under section 294 of Cri.P.C. As the defence has admitted the post-mortem notes, the prosecution did not examine the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. Once the accused has admitted the post-mortem notes under section 294 of Cri.P.C. he cannot be allowed to make capital of the fact that the doctor who conducted the postmortem was not examined. 21. In the case of Vijender (supra) the post-mortem report was not accepted by the Supreme Court as in the said case, it could not be conclusively said that the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the person whom the accused was supposed to have murdered. In the said case, there was discrepancy in respect of the person whom the accused therein was supposed to have killed and the dead body on whom the post-mortem was conducted. Mr. In the said case, there was discrepancy in respect of the person whom the accused therein was supposed to have killed and the dead body on whom the post-mortem was conducted. Mr. Martis, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has also placed reliance on the observation in the decision of Vijender (supra) in support of his contention that in absence of any medical opinion that the injuries were homicidal, accidental death of the victim could not be ruled out. However, on perusal of the post-mortem notes in the present case, it is seen that it is clearly mentioned therein that the cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock (unnatural). As per the post-mortem notes, save incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased. From the circumstances relating to the present case, it is clear that the said injuries could not have been accidental or suicidal and they could only have been homicidal. In the present case, since genuineness of the post-mortem has been admitted, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, has not been examined. However, this would make no difference because the bare perusal of the injuries suffered by the deceased Ganesh Pujari per se shows that the death was unnatural. There were seven incised wounds on the body of Ganesh. Some of the injuries are on the vital part of the body. As per the post-mortem notes, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, in this view of the matter, non-examination of the doctor who conducted the post mortem would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. The view which we have taken in fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (S) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 474 (Brij Bhukhan and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh)3. The said decision is rendered by a Bench of three Judges and the said decision still holds good. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has laid down that if the injuries per se appeared to the Court to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, absence of medical evidence to this effect, would not affect the prosecution case. 22. Thus, we find that there is sufficient evidence which incriminates the present appellant. We find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 23. 22. Thus, we find that there is sufficient evidence which incriminates the present appellant. We find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Court below. 23. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out his sentence. Appeal dismissed. -----