Judgment ( 1. ) IN this appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has called in question the legal tenability of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge in S. T. No. 108/93 whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison-ment for life. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 22-8-1992 when Dilip (P. W. 4) was going alongwith his friend Sunil near a nala they saw that the accused Gajanan was assaulting his wife, Chhabbobai, with knife and the agonized woman was screaming loudly. Hearing her cry many a person arrived at the spot to save her. On arrival of other persons the accused took to his heels. It was noticed by the witnesses that Chhabbobai had been inflicted blows with knife on her face, waste region, hands and some other parts of the body and she was bleeding profusely. Sunil was asked to inform the police and Chhabbobai was carried to the police station and thereafter to the hospital. Dilip lodged an FIR (Ex. P-7) wherein he had stated that there was a scuffle between the accused and his wife and she had been injured. Chhabbobai breathed her last in the hospital. The accused was arrested and while in custody he led to the discovery of the knife which he had used in the crime. The investigating agency prepared the panchnama vide Ex. P-l, seized wearing apparel of the accused which were stained with blood as per Ex. P-12, sent the same for serological examination at Calcutta as per Ex. P-22. After completing the investigation the investigating agency placed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate who in turn committed the matter to the Court of Session. Trial was conducted and learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him as has been indicated herein- above. ( 3. ) THE accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The accused had also taken a plea that he had gone to Nagpur on that day and after coming back from Nagpur, next day he was arrested by the police. ( 3. ) THE accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The accused had also taken a plea that he had gone to Nagpur on that day and after coming back from Nagpur, next day he was arrested by the police. It has also been pleaded by the accused that house owner Bhimrao had got his wife murdered. ( 4. ) THE prosecution in furtherance of its case examined ten witnesses, namely, Dr. Nishikant Lahate who had seen Chhabbobai in the hospital first and declared that she was dead. Bramhanand Sadve (P. W. 2), Rampal (P. W. 7), Sitaram (P. W. 8) and Hukumchand (P. W. 9) are formal witnesses, Santa Choudhary (P. W. 3) who had spoken about the ill-feeling that existed between the accused and the deceased, P. W. 4, eye-witnesses to the occurrence, Shakuntal Bai (P. W. 5), another eye-witness, Ganga Bai, mother of the deceased, and G. P. Mishra (P. W. 10), the investigating officer. The defence despite the opportunity being granted and time taken, chose not to adduce any evidence. ( 5. ) THE learned Trial Judge on consideration of the material brought on record found the accused guilty of offence and sentenced him as has been stated hereinabove. ( 6. ) WE have heard Mr. Satish Pateria, learned Counsel for the ac- cused and Mr. S. K. Rai, learned Public Prosecutor for the Stale. ( 7. ) ASSAILING the judgment of conviction it is submitted by Mr. Satish Pateria that the accused has falsely been roped in the crime in question and there is no material to implead him in the said crime. It is also putforth by him that the testimony brought on record is far from the truth and replete with inherent contradictions so as to invite the confidence for the purpose of recording conviction. He has also criticized the factum of leading to discovery and seizure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the accused that the learned Trial Judge has grossly erred while not accepting the plea of alibi. ( 8. ) MR. S. K. Rai, learned Pubic Prosecutor for the State, sounding a contra note, has submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Judge is absolutely impeccable and does not warrant interference. ( 8. ) MR. S. K. Rai, learned Pubic Prosecutor for the State, sounding a contra note, has submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Judge is absolutely impeccable and does not warrant interference. It is also putforth by him that when there is eye-witness and his deposition has not been shaken and there is nothing to disbelieve their testimony, the conviction has rightly been passed on their version and there is no reason to show that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reproach. He has further submitted that there is no illegality in respect of seizure of the knife in question. ( 9. ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar we have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and the evidence brought on record. On a scrutiny of the post-mortem report we find following injuries have been noted by the doctor: " (1) Incised wound, 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" deep to bone, on Rt. supra orbital reason, 1 cm above from the medial end of Rt. Eye-brow, vertical. (2) Incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" on eye lid of Rt. eye near medical angle of Rt. Eye. (3) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" deep to bone at middle of Lt. eye-brow on It. supra orbital region, vertical. (4) Lacerated wound of 1/4" x 1/4" over lt. eye lid at medical angle. (5) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" deep to the soft palat fracture of nasal bone Rt- side at 1/2" below the medical angle of Rt. eye. (6) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" at Rt. nostril, vertical. (7) Puncture wound of 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" at 1/2" below the lt. internal angle of mouth. (8) Incised would 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" at middle of lt. ear pin. (9) Puncture wound over lt. parotid region of 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/3". (10) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" deep to the lt. lung at 3rd intercostals space in anterior axillary line and parallel to ariterior axillary line. (11) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" x 1" at medial border of lt. forearm 3" above the styloid process ulnar vertical part. (12) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" x 1" at medical border of Lt. forearm 3" above the styloid process ulnar vertical part. (11) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" x 1" at medial border of lt. forearm 3" above the styloid process ulnar vertical part. (12) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" x 1" at medical border of Lt. forearm 3" above the styloid process ulnar vertical part. (13) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" deep to radical artery over flex or aspect of Lt. forearm 1 cm medial to the styloid process, radial artery ruptured. (14) Incised wound of 1 1/4" x 1/4" at the level of T11 on left lateral border of vertebral column, deep to abdominal cavity vertical. (15) Incised wound of 1" x 1/4" deep to 1/2" on lateral 1" away from left lateral border of vertebral column. " ( 10. ) THE autopsy surgeon has opined that cavity filled with fluid blood, ruptured at the level of would, incised wound at upper lobe of left lung of a size of 3/4" x 1/2" x 11/4". He has also opined that death had occurred due to cardio respiratory arrest due to massive haemorrhages leading to hypovlumic and neurogenic shock due to injury to vital organs, i. e. , left lung, left kidney and left radical artery. On a perusal of the post-mortem report there can not be a scintilla of doubt that the death was homicidal in nature and the deceased was brutally and mercilessly assaulted. ( 11. ) THE question for consideration is whether the accused can be implicated in the crime in question. Dilip (P. W. 4) is the star witness who had seen the incident. He had stated in an unequivocal manner that the accused was working with a contractor, namely, Naneshwar. The deceased was staying with the accused but after some time she had left him and was working with one Ratnakar. It has come in his deposition that while he was going with Sunil he heard loud cry of Chhabbobai for help. He categorically stated that the deceased was inflicted blows with knife. On hearing her cry he proceeded towards the accused and seeing them the accused fled away. He had described the injuries on Chhabbobai and stated that she was bleeding quite profusely. He has also stated that police seized wearing apparel of the deceased as per Ex. P-13 where he had put his signature. On hearing her cry he proceeded towards the accused and seeing them the accused fled away. He had described the injuries on Chhabbobai and stated that she was bleeding quite profusely. He has also stated that police seized wearing apparel of the deceased as per Ex. P-13 where he had put his signature. In cross-examination he has disputed the suggestion that the person who was inflicting the knife blows was not the accused but somebody else. He has stood embedded with the version that he had seen the accused giving blows. He has disputed the fact that at 5:30 there was no light so he could not have seen the accused. It has also come out in the cross-examination that there was no worker coming from Raymond Mill. He has also stated that he could not talk to Chhabbobai. Despite roving and searching crossexamination nothing has been elicited to disbelieve this witness. In the evidence of Shakuntala (P. W. 5), it has come that Chhabbobai and the accused was staying separately. On the day of the incident she and Chhabbobai were coming together but when the accused started conversing with Chhabbobai she proceeded forward and after that she noticed that Chhabbobai was shouting, for help and Gajanan was assaulting her with knife. When she was shouting Dilip and Sunil had come. In the cross-examination of this witness she had testified that Chhabbobai was staying separately from her husband. This witness had stated that before the incident there was conversation between the deceased and the accused but there was no altercation. Nothing has been put to these two witnesses whether they were inimically disposed towards the accused. Both the witnesses have supported the versions of the prosecution and there is corroboration from the medical evidence. It is also perceptible that the seizure of the knife at the instance of the accused has also not been challenged and in our opinion rightly so, because the procedural formalities have been completed and accused has led to the discovery of the knife. In the serological examination report as contained in Ex. P-22, it is found that the blood stains were found on the earth, knife, shirt, pant, sari, blouse, petticoat and bra of the deceased. No doubt can be cast from any angle with regard to the seizure made in respect of these articles as the seizure witnesses have stood firm in their testimony. P-22, it is found that the blood stains were found on the earth, knife, shirt, pant, sari, blouse, petticoat and bra of the deceased. No doubt can be cast from any angle with regard to the seizure made in respect of these articles as the seizure witnesses have stood firm in their testimony. ( 12. ) SUBMISSION of Mr. Pateria is that was no justification on the part of the husband to mercilessly assault his wife. It is also his submission that prudence warrants corroboration of the existing evidence. In this regard it is apposite to refer to the decision rendered by the Apex-Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dibakar Naik and others, (2002) 5 SCC 323 . In the aforesaid case Their Lordships observed that the Court has to judge the evidence in a criminal case on the foundation of probability and its intrinsic quality should not reject the testimony of the witnesses by the adopting a technical approach. ( 13. ) IN the context we may profitably reproduce Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the decision rendered in the case of Krishnan and Anr. v. State, AIR 2003 SC 2978 : " 22. A person has no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standarded, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to proof is an exercise the inter-dcpendence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another a learned author says: (See "the Mathematics of Proof II"; Glanville Williamas: Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p. 340 (342 ). "the simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence arc dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may fee doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant filed from justice. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may fee doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant filed from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions, and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other. " 23. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law can not afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. " 13-A. If the evidence brought on record is tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid parameters we are inclined to think that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable double. We say so as the evidence of eye-witnesses have remained unimpeachable despite the searching cross-examination. Nothing has been brought on record to show that these two witnesses were inimically disposed towards the accused. There is no technical fallacy in recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused. In view of the factum that the report as contained in Annexure P-4 lends corroboration to the case of the prosecution; that medical evidence gives total credence to the story built up by the prosecution; and that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution we arc inclined to give the stamp of approval to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Judge and we so do. ( 14. ) RESULTANTLY, the criminal appeal, being devoid of substance stands dismissed.