Judgment J. N. PATEL, J.:- The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao dated 22.2.2000 in Sessions Case No.20/98 in which he along with one Ashish Culaco were found guilty of having committed offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - each, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The appellant accused along with the co-accused Ashish Culaco were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Margao on a charge of having committed murder of one Shashikant Kawade by stabbing him with a knife on his chest, on 18.5.98 at about 20.20 hours, Opposite Nalanda Apartments, in an open field area at Rawal fond Margao in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Shashikant Kawade with knife and kicks and thereby committed offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. In reply to the charge, the appellant accused and the co-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It was the case if the appellant accused that he was just proceeding by the road from Rawal fond after getting down from his bus and was going to call another driver and at that time he was caught by public and was assaulted. 4.. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, the appellant accused and his colleague Ashish Culaco were pick-pocketers and that on 18.5.1998 the deceased Shashikant Kawade had slapped one of them because of which they had threatened the deceased Shashikant Kawade with dire consequences. On the same day at about 2.00 p.m. they had visited the room of Shashikant Kawade and in the presence of his wife, they provoked him to come out of his house by abusing him but Shashikant Kawade was not permitted to go out of the house. The appellant and his colleague left the place. On the same day in the evening at about 8.15 p.m. when Shashikant Kawade was sitting outside 'Napolean Bar', he heard shouts of 'chor' 'chor' from the near by huts on which Shashikant Kawade rushed towards that direction followed by Mr. The appellant and his colleague left the place. On the same day in the evening at about 8.15 p.m. when Shashikant Kawade was sitting outside 'Napolean Bar', he heard shouts of 'chor' 'chor' from the near by huts on which Shashikant Kawade rushed towards that direction followed by Mr. Rafik Gondi and when he reached in the field, the appellant accused and the co-accused assaulted him and the appellant accused took out a knife and stabbed Shashikant Kawade on the chest, because of which Shashikant Kawade collapsed on the ground. The appellant accused and the co-accused tried to run away from the scene of offence but they were accosted and assaulted by the public with rods and kicks. In the meantime the police arrived at the spot and took away injured Shashikant Kawade as well as both the accused persons to the hospital, and on the way Shashikant Kawade died. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet against the appellant accused and the co-accused came to be filed and the matter was committed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao to the Court of Sessions and this is how the appellant accused and the co-accused came to be convicted for having committed murder of Shashikant Kawade. 5. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the present appellant accused who is the author of the injury which proved to be fatal and caused the death of Shashikant Kawade probably did not prefer his appeal immediately on being convicted, but the co-accused Ashish Culaco did prefer an appeal before this Court challenging the Judgment and Order of the Sessions Court in which, both the accused were convicted for having committed offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 340fIndian Penal Code. The said appeal came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.58/2000 and has been disposed of by this Court by Judgment and Order dated 5.2.2002, wherein the conviction of the co-accused Ashish Culaco has been upheld. 6. It appears that thereafter in the year 2005, this appellant accused has preferred an appeal challenging the Judgment and Order of the Court which convicted him and the co-accused. 7. The appellant has been provided with an Advocate to argue his appeal from the panel of Legal Aid maintained by this Court. 8. 6. It appears that thereafter in the year 2005, this appellant accused has preferred an appeal challenging the Judgment and Order of the Court which convicted him and the co-accused. 7. The appellant has been provided with an Advocate to argue his appeal from the panel of Legal Aid maintained by this Court. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant accused submitted that the only ground which he wants to press in service is that the conviction of the appellant accused for having committed offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained as the incident of assault took place out of a sudden quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased Shashikant Kawade preceded by the incident where the deceased Shashikant Kawade had slapped the appellant accused being pick-pocketers and therefore the incident is a result of sudden and grave provocation. Further it has been submitted that it is a case of one blow and therefore this Court may consider the case of the appellant accused as one falling under exception 1 and 4 of section 300 of Indian Penal Code. And if that is so, the conviction of the appellant accused requires to be altered from section 302 to section 304, Part 2 of Indian Penal Code. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court had an occasion of considering the case of the co-accused who was convicted alongwith the appellant accused for having committed offence under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and after marshalling the evidence on record, upheld the Judgment and Order of the Sessions Court holding the co-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and therefore such a plea cannot be considered. In the appeal filed by the co-accused who is actually the author of the injury which caused death of Shashikant Kawade, it is submitted that the evidence on record does not indicate that the case of the appellant accused was within exception 1 or 4 of section 300 of Indian Penal Code and therefore this contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant accused deserves to be outright rejected. The appeal should be dismissed. 10. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant accused, we have examined the evidence on record. The appeal should be dismissed. 10. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant accused, we have examined the evidence on record. What we find from the evidence of the witnesses, particularly Amli Shashikant Kawade PW -1 who is the wife of the deceased Shashikant Kawade. In her evidence she has stated that her husband knew the accused persons who were pick pocketers and that on the faithful day i.e. on 18.5.1998 at about 1.30 in the afternoon, her husband told her that he had slapped two persons who were pick-pocketers. At about 2.00 p.m. both the accused had been to her house and threatened the deceased of dire consequences on which she prevented her husband from going out of the house, and that it is only in the evening, when her husband was sitting in front of 'Napolean Bar', he was stabbed by them. This evidence of Amli PW-1 wife of the deceased Shashikant rather indicates motive on the part of appellant accused and his associate to take revenge on Shashikant who had slapped them. There is nothing on record to show that the appel1ant accused or his associates reacted immediately in retaliation, as a result of which, the deceased suffered the injury and died. But in the afternoon time they visited the residence of the deceased and instigated him to come out and left the house of the deceased after threatening him with dire consequences. Therefore exception 1 of section 300 of Indian Penal Code will not be attracted in the case. In so far as the incident of assault is concerned, it has taken place at about 8.30 p.m. One of the eye-witnesses who fol1owed the deceased who ran towards the direction from where the shouts of 'chor' 'chor' were coming is Rafik Gondi PW-2. In his evidence before the Court, he has clearly stated that on 18.5.1998 at about 8.15 p.m. when he was standing in front of 'Bar Napolean' at that time he heard shouts of 'chor' 'chor' and the deceased started running towards the field fol1owed by this witness Rafik Gondi. He saw two persons who caught the deceased Shashikant, one of them who was little fat removed a knife and gave blow on the chest of the deceased Shashikant. He saw two persons who caught the deceased Shashikant, one of them who was little fat removed a knife and gave blow on the chest of the deceased Shashikant. Due to the blow of the knife Shashikant was bleeding and fel1 on the ground and that the people gathered on the spot, caught these two persons and assaulted them. Thereafter, police came and took both these persons. This witness has identified the appellant accused as the person who has stabbed the deceased on his chest and the co-accused having caught hold of Shashikant. It is true that only one blow was given on the chest of the victim by the appellant accused, but if one sees the nature of injury, the location and the weapon i.e. the knife, there cannot be any doubt in one's mind that the appellant accused had both intention and knowledge to commit murder of Shashikant. 11. PW -4/Dr. A vinash Pujari who conducted the post-mortem examination found that there was penetrating incised stabbed wound of length 7 ems. and width at maximum, in central part 2 cms. The margins were clean cut. Shape was elliptical/slit-like, with both angles sharp or acute/red and fresh with evidence of blood infiltration in surrounding tissue. It was located on chest, front left side almost horizontal/transverse 2 cms. below left nipple, inner end 8.5 cms. from mid line, 13 cms. below the apex of enterior auxiliary fold, is the outer end. It was 118 cms. from the heel of left side. It was caused by sharp edged weapon and ante-mortem in nature. The opinion of the medical officer was that the cause of death was on account of haemorrhage and shock due to penetrating incised stab wound on the chest involving heart. Therefore even though one blow was given, but considering the background in which the incident took place, it cannot be said that the case of the appellant accused would fall within exception 4. On the other hand, it is clearly covered by clause 3rdly of section 300 of Indian Penal Code and the Sessions Court was justified in convicting the appellant accused alongwith his associates for having committed offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 12. Hence, we do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.