JUDGMENT - KAKADE P.V., J.:-The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th May, 1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1997 wherein the appellant was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 2. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are thus- 3. Deceased Appajis Dnyanu Mane used to reside at village Manewadi (Wakurde) with his wife Shantabai. The accused used to reside in the same locality at some distance from the house of the deceased. The deceased was an agricultural labour. The relations between the deceased and the accused were friendly. They used to consume liquor together. There was place for thrashing grain in front of the house of the deceased. Prior to the incident, the accused had asked the deceased to clean the thrashing circle. The accused was taking rest under a tree while deceased was doing the work of cleaning the said circle under the influence of alcohol. At that time wife of deceased came there and witnessed that her husband was alone working in the thrashing circle, therefore, she did not like it and asked her husband not to work for other in lieu of liquor and also asked not to work in such manner. Since that incident, the relations between the family of the deceased and the accused were strained. About two months thereafter there had been quarrel between the deceased and the accused, and the accused had abused the deceased with reference to his wife. At that time the deceased had challenged the accused not to give abuses. It is alleged that the accused used to pickup quarrels with the deceased and used to give threats that he would kill him sometime. On 22-5-1997 deceased and his wife Shantabai were working at their home. In the evening the deceased collected Rs. 100/- from his wife and went for purchasing grocery articles and returned at 7.30 p.m. to his home and kept the bag of grocery in the door. At that time accused was sitting in front of his house and the accused started abusing but deceased asked not to do so and also challenged him. Immediately thereafter the accused came to the house of the deceased. The complainant Shantabai was present there. At that time accused was sitting in front of his house and the accused started abusing but deceased asked not to do so and also challenged him. Immediately thereafter the accused came to the house of the deceased. The complainant Shantabai was present there. While she was asking deceased not to pick up quarrel with the accused, the accused rushed towards the deceased and give 4 to 5 blows of knife on his chest and abdomen. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. The complainant raised shouts and some persons including Dadasaheb, nephew of the deceased, came there. The accused ran away. On seeing the condition of the deceased, Dadasaheb went to call his father Nivrutti i.e. younger brother of the deceased. Nivrutti arranged for jeep and deceased was taken to Primary Health Centre, Shirala, accompanied by wife Shantabai and others. Medical Officer examined the deceased and declared him dead. Thereafter the complainant went to Police Station, Shirala, where she narrated the incident and her complaint was recorded by P.S.I. Rajendra Patil at about 11.10 p.m. The investigation commenced after registration of the offence against the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The inquest panchnama was prepared and body was sent for post-mortem examination. The panchnama of scene of incident was prepared, in which course incriminating articles were seized. Statement of various witnesses came to be recorded. The accused was arrested and in course of his police custody the weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered at his instance when he led the police where the knife was hidden. It was seized under memorandum of panchnama. The incriminating article were sent to Chemical Analysers for examination, whose report was received and is part of the record. On completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was sent to the Court of law. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the impugned offence, to which he pleased not guilty. The defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability. The prosecution led its evidence at length, on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused in aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal. 5. We heard Mr. The defence of the accused is that of total denial of any criminal liability. The prosecution led its evidence at length, on which basis the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to bring home the guilt and accordingly proceeded to convict and sentence the accused in aforesaid manner. Hence the appeal. 5. We heard Mr. R.R. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Dr. F.R. Shaikh, the learned A.P.P. for the State at length. We have also perused the entire evidence on record. The prosecution case relies upon sole eye-witness testimony of complainant Shantabai wife of deceased and therefore, it would be just and proper on our part to scrutinise her testimony so as to appreciate the entire evidence in its proper perspective. Complainant Shantabai has stated in her evidence that accused and the deceased were friends, residing across the road, opposite each other and they used to consume liquor together. However, some time prior to Dasara festival of that year, she had asked her husband to go to their land for work, but he had refused and therefore Shantabai went alone. When she returned she saw that her husband alone was preparing thrashing circle under influence of alcohol and accused was sleeping under tree. This aspect annoyed the complainant and she asked her husband as to why he was doing the work of cleaning at the influence of liquor. She further asked him not to do work for liquor given by other person and also taunted the accused that if he had more than sufficient money he should throw it in a stream but should not spoil her husband. This quarrel was one of the starting point due to which the relations between the two families were attained. Subsequently there was also quarrel between the accused and deceased, in which course the accused used to abuse the deceased and also threatened him. On the day of the incident, according to Shantabai, deceased had gone for making some purchase and returned at about 7.30 p.m. Son of the accused had come from Bombay. Accused was also abusing Shantabai but she did not pay any attention to him. However, the deceased told Shantabai that they should inform the son of accused that his father should not abuse wives of others. This was heard by accused sitting on Ota of his house. Accused was also abusing Shantabai but she did not pay any attention to him. However, the deceased told Shantabai that they should inform the son of accused that his father should not abuse wives of others. This was heard by accused sitting on Ota of his house. The accused started abusing the deceased and there was quarrel between them, in which course the accused came rushing with knife and gave 4 to 5 blows of knife on the person of deceased on his chest and below ear, due to which deceased suffered bleeding injuries and fell down. She raised alarm seeing the blood and accused went away. In the meantime somebody informed Nivrutti the brother of the deceased, who came on the scene of incident and he arranged the jeep and then took the injured to the hospital, but he was declared dead. Complainant thereafter went to the Police Station and lodged complaint against the accused at 11.10 p.m. This is the total version given by Shantabai regarding the assault. This version is supported by the evidence of P.W. 6 Nivrutti and P.W. 7 Dadasaheb son of Nivrutti. P.W. 7 Dadasaheb had stated that on the day of incident while he was at his house he heard cries of the complainant he went to the scene of incident. He saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and his relatives were also arriving there. He asked Shantabai what had happened, and she informed him that the accused had assaulted her husband and had gone away. He immediately went to his father P.W. 6 Nivrutti and informed about the incident. Nivrutti rushed to the scene of incident and saw what had happened and arranged jeep to transfer the injured to the hospital. This version of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 fully supports the complainants version that it was the accused, who assaulted the deceased in presence of his wife Shantabai. In our considered view, on critical perusal of evidence of Shantabai vis a vis the contents of the complaint, and testimonies of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, we are totally satisfied that the version of Shantabai is not only reliable but is also sufficient to inspire confidence to base the conviction thereon. 6. Mr. In our considered view, on critical perusal of evidence of Shantabai vis a vis the contents of the complaint, and testimonies of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, we are totally satisfied that the version of Shantabai is not only reliable but is also sufficient to inspire confidence to base the conviction thereon. 6. Mr. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the sole testimony of eye-witness Shantabai could not be relied upon because she was interested person and was likely to arraign the accused falsely. However, we disagree with this proposition. The evidence of Shantabai has clearly shows that the incident has been witnessed by her and she has narrated the incident clearly and categorically. Her testimony could not be shaken in any manner whatsoever in the course of cross-examination. Moreover it is also supported by P.W. 6 and P.W. 7, as well as the medical evidence on record. On perusal of Shantabais testimony it is seen that she is a wife, whose husband was killed in her presence and therefore, we are of the view that it is absolutely not likely for her to involve the accused person falsely allowing the real culprit to go scot free. Therefore, we hold that Shantabais testimony is wholly reliable and has to be accepted in order to bring home the guilt on that basis. 7. The discovery of knife at the instance of the accused is also duly proved vide Exh. 13-B which shows that while the accused was in police custody he volunteered to show the place where the knife was hidden and at his instance it was duly recovered vide Exh. 13-B. The learned Counsel for the appellant attacked the evidence of discovery of knife at the instance of accused on two grounds firstly, it was submitted that Exh. 13-A is dated 24-5-1997 whereas Exh. 13-B is dated 22-5-1997. We have perused the original documents for that purpose and are satisfied that the discovery of knife indeed took place on 24-5-1997 as narrated by panch witness P.W. 2 Nalawade. However, memorandum Exh. 13-B apparently shows that the date 22-5-1997, however, we have no doubt whatever that it is a mistake while writing the memorandum Exh. 13 because assurance can be drawn not only from the evidence of Panch witness Nalawade but also Ex. However, memorandum Exh. 13-B apparently shows that the date 22-5-1997, however, we have no doubt whatever that it is a mistake while writing the memorandum Exh. 13 because assurance can be drawn not only from the evidence of Panch witness Nalawade but also Ex. 13-A which shows the date of Panchnama is 24-5-1997 and therefore, there is no falsity in any preparation of panchnama Secondly, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that Shantabai in her cross-examination has admitted that she was shown the knife on the date when her statement was recorded. On the basis of this stray statement, it was sought to be argued that complaint of the complainant was recorded on 22-5-1997 at which time the knife was shown by the police to Shantabai and therefore, recovery panchnama has lost its value. However, on perusal of cross-examination of Shantabai in that regard it is seen that she was definitely confused by the defence Counsel while he put some oblique questions to her in that regard. Moreover what she has stated is that police showed her knife on the date of her statement, however, it has not come on record whether her supplementary statements was recorded subsequent to recording of Panchnama or not, nor has it been put to the investigation officer and therefore, it cannot be said at all that Shantabai was shown knife at the time when her complaint was recorded on 22-5-1997. Therefore, in our considered view, the discovery panchnama of recovery of knife at the instance of accused is also corroborative piece of evidence in support of prosecution case. 8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that in the course of his cross-examination the Medical officer has stated that in the course of post-mortem semi-digested food was found in the stomach of deceased. On the basis of this statement it was urged that the death of the deceased must have occurred much prior to the time given by the prosecution i.e. about 7.30 p.m. This submission is made on the basis of the stray statement made by Shantabai to the effect that she and her husband and taken food at about 10.00 a.m. in the morning and thereafter they had not taken any food. Therefore, it was submitted that when semi-digested food was found in the stomach which shows that death must have been caused within six hours of the intake of food and that Shantabai stated that the food was taken at 10.00 a.m., then the death must have occurred at 4.00 p.m. and not at about 7.30 p.m. or thereafter. In this regard we must note that Shantabais statement that she and her husband had taken food at 10.00 a.m. must be given sufficient latitude regarding timing because in the natural course no villager takes food by observing the clock. It also cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have taken some food or snacks after his meals, therefore the submission that the death must have occurred at 4.00 p.m., and hence the F.I.R. is delays, appears to be far-fetched and cannot be accepted for a moment. 9. Mr. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the evidence on record shows that the copy of the F.I.R. was submitted to the J.M.F.C. on 3-6-1997 and therefore, there was inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court of J.M.F.C. It is true that the Investigating Officer has admitted the fact that the copy of the record was received in the Court on 3-6-1997. However, this would not be sufficient to hold that sending of copy of F.I.R. was delayed mainly due to the reason that nothing has come on record, nor it is brought on record by the defence, that the F.I.R. was sent by the Police Station with inordinate delay. In other words, there is nothing on record to show whether the copy of the F.I.R. was despatched with promptitude by the Police Station but was received in the Court by delay of 10 days. Thus in absence of date when the copy of the F.I.R. was sent by the Police Station, it cannot be said that it was despatched with delay. 10. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was no motive for the appellant to commit the crime. We must note here that element of motive becomes insignificant in the face of direct evidence showing intention to kill on the part of the accused. 10. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was no motive for the appellant to commit the crime. We must note here that element of motive becomes insignificant in the face of direct evidence showing intention to kill on the part of the accused. Moreover, there is evidence of motive which can be gathered from the testimony of Shantabai, who states that how the enmity between the parties ensued after repeated quarrels between the families. It was also tried to point that F.I.R. does not mention the name of P.W. 7 Dadasaheb, as the person who reached the spot of incident immediately after its occurrence. However, in this regard we must take into account the state of mental condition of Shantabai whose husband was killed a short time ago and therefore she would not be in a position to give all the details including the name of P.W. 7 Dadasaheb, who reached at the spot of the incident. However, P.W. 7 s presence on the scene immediately after its occurrence is to be quite natural, in view of their relationship and admitted position that his house is quite close to the scene of incident. Further, it was submitted on behalf the appellant that there were several contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence and therefore, it could not be accepted on its face value. However, in this regard we must note the discrepancies and so called contradictions found on record are seen to be not only minor but quite natural, and also those cannot go to the root of the matter and hence are of no significance so as to prove to be fatal to the prosecution case. 11. For the reasons recorded above, we hold that the prosecution evidence on record is more than sufficient to bring home the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the reasoning adopted and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge would brook no interference. In the result the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----