ORAL JUDGMENT: P.R.BORKAR,J. 1. Appellant Munna @ Shivdas has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2004 decided on 7.2.2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. Briefly stated, it is prosecution case that deceased Ganesh Kisan Pawal was working as a salesman in the shop of Chandrakant Darade (pw9) at Shinganapur, where there is famous Shani temple. Deceased Ganesh used to work from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. He was residing at Vanjarwadi with his mother Mandabai, father and sister. On 27.4.2004 the deceased Ganesh attended his work at the shop of Chandrakant Darade (pw9) from morning. At 2.00 p.m. Chandrakant Darade (pw9) went to Vanjarwadi. Ganesh took meals. Since there was no customer, he went to sleep. At about 2.30 p.m. the appellant who was son of the owner of Shani Mahatma Lodge and Hotel, came to the place where deceased Ganesh was sleeping and while Ganesh was asleep, he gave slap on the cheek of Ganesh. Ganesh got up and he also retaliated by giving a slap to appellant Munna and questioned for slapping him. Appellant Munna asked why he did not pay the outstanding dues of the hotel. There was exchange of words and appellant Munna took out a knife and inflicted blows on the abdomen, back and other parts of the body of Ganesh. This was seen by Dnyaneshwar Kardile (pw3), Vishnu Bhumkar (pw2) and Akbar Shaikh (pw4) as they came hearing the quarrel. Thereafter appellant ran away. Chandrakant Darade (pw9) was called. He along with others took Ganesh to the hospital of Dr. Atul Khalkar (pw13) at Ahmednagar in an ambulance. While Ganesh was being treated, P.S.I. Jadhav arrived there and recorded the complaint as given by Ganesh which was treated as the first information report. Ganesh died in the hospital on 29.4.2004 at about 3.35 p.m. Thereafter his dead body was taken to the Civil Hospital where Dr. Munot (pw10) performed postmortem. 3. In the mean time, A.S.I. Tawale (pw14) who was posted on Bandobast duty at Shinganapur learnt about the incident. He arrested the present appellant. Ganesh died in the hospital on 29.4.2004 at about 3.35 p.m. Thereafter his dead body was taken to the Civil Hospital where Dr. Munot (pw10) performed postmortem. 3. In the mean time, A.S.I. Tawale (pw14) who was posted on Bandobast duty at Shinganapur learnt about the incident. He arrested the present appellant. Subsequently the appellant discovered the knife that was used by him. P.S.I. Jadhav (pw17) conducted the investigation. 4. Dr.Atul Khalkar (pw13) examined at Exh.46 stated that on 27.4.2004 at about 5.45 p.m. deceased Ganesh was brought to his hospital in an injured state and he examined him and found following injuries : (1) Incised wound on middle of the back lateral to T-11 to T-12 vertebra on left side. 2 x 3 c.m. deep upto transverse process of vertebra. (2) Incised wound posterior to illac crest x 2 x 3 c.m. bone deep. (3) Incised wounds over sacro iliac joint 2 x 3 c.m. bone deep. (4) Incised wound on left hypochondria at sub posterior margins 2 x 3 c.m. going to abdominal cavity. (5) Incised wound post axillary line 2 x 3 c.m. not entered into thoracic cavity. (6) Incised wound over knee joint 2 x 4 c.m. joint deep. (7) Incised wound elbow joint 1 x 2 cm. superficial. On internal examination the doctor found injury no. 1 with fracture of transverse processes of vertebra. Injury nos. 2, 3 and 5 found to be internally muscle cut. From Injury no. 4 parts of the intestine were found to be coming out. Injury no. 1 and 4 were grievous injuries. So far as injury no. 4 is concerned it had cut stomach 2 x 3 c.m. and liver 4 x 2 c.m. 5. Dr. Khalkar further stated that at about 6.00 p.m. police came and asked whether they could record statement of Ganesh. Dr.Khalkar examined Ganesh. Ganesh was conscious and oriented about time and place. Accordingly Dr. Khalkar made endorsement that patient was conscious and oriented in time and place. Thereafter statement of Ganesh was recorded by P.S.I. Jadhav of Sonai police station. The doctor stated that he was present when said statement was being recorded. The patient was in a position to give statement. He made endorsements on the statement before and after recording of the complaint. He proved the complaint as one given in his presence by the patient and signed by the patient. 6. The doctor stated that he was present when said statement was being recorded. The patient was in a position to give statement. He made endorsements on the statement before and after recording of the complaint. He proved the complaint as one given in his presence by the patient and signed by the patient. 6. Dr. Khalkar was subjected to detailed cross-examination. He stated in his examination-in-chief that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The incised wounds were possible with the knife which is attached in this case. He proved injury certificate issued by him at Exh.47. In cross-examination Dr. Khalkar stated that patient, when first examined by him, was in shock, his B.P. could not be recorded, and his pulse was 120 p.m. But by 6.35 p.m. patient had started improving. He denied that injured Ganesh had not given statement. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration recorded and proved by Dr. Khalkar; so also injury certificate issued and proved by him at Exh.47. 7. P.S.I. Jadhav examined at Exh.64 also stated that he had approached the doctor and the doctor made endorsements before and after recording of the statement. He recorded the statement. There is no reason why Ganesh should have stated against the appellant if the appellant was not the person who had assaulted him. A person with such injuries was not likely name someone other than his assailant. It does not appear from evidence that any of those who had taken Munna to the hospital had any grudge or enmity with the appellant. Considering nature and extent of injuries and other circumstances, there is no possibility of dying declaration being result of tutoring. The dying declaration itself shows that the incident had taken place at day time and there was previous acquaintance of the appellant and the deceased. Though the deceased was not knowing the appellant’s full name, he was knowing appellant as ’Munna’, who is the son of owner of Shani Mahatma Lodge and Hotel. It has also come in evidence that deceased Ganesh used to take food at hotel on credit and there were some dues outstanding against him. 8. The dying declaration of deceased Ganesh is corroborated by evidence of 3 eye witnesses, viz. Vishnu Bhumkar (pw2), Dnyaneshwar Kardile (pw3) and Akbar Shaikh (pw4). It has also come in evidence that deceased Ganesh used to take food at hotel on credit and there were some dues outstanding against him. 8. The dying declaration of deceased Ganesh is corroborated by evidence of 3 eye witnesses, viz. Vishnu Bhumkar (pw2), Dnyaneshwar Kardile (pw3) and Akbar Shaikh (pw4). It has come in the dying declaration itself that Vishnu Bhumkar (pw2) and Dnyaneshwar Kardile (pw3) had come to Ganesh when he raised shouts and on seeing them coming appellant Munna ran away. So at the earliest opportunity the names of these 2 witnesses were disclosed. Vishnu Bhumkar (pw2) was working in shop no.9 which is just adjacent to shop no.8 in which deceased Ganesh was working. Vishnu Bhumkar (pw2) stated that at the relevant time first he heard talk from shop no.8 between appellant Munna and deceased Ganesh. Later on, the talk turned into exchange of words and assault. The incident of assault was seen by him through a hole in the partition. Thereafter customer from his shop went away and then he went near one vehicle on the backside of shop to ask some persons if they need coconut and other Pooja articles and while returning back, he saw Ganesh coming out shouting from the backside of the shop and he said that he had been stabbed with knife by Munna. At that time Vishnu also saw Munna with a knife. Deceased Ganesh had sustained injury on his abdomen. Munna went away. Three days thereafter Ganesh died. Absolutely there is no reason for this witness to depose falsely. In cross-examination certain omissions were brought on record. Witness Vishnu Bhumkar has not stated before police that he had seen through hole of tin sheet between two shops that appellant and Ganesh were assaulting each other. He had not stated before police that Ganesh raised shouts that Munna had injured him with knife, but omission is only regarding shouts and rest of the part is there. So there is no material omission as such. 9. Then there is evidence of Dr.Dnyaneshwar Kardile at Exh.21, who stated that at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. he went near one vehicle in parking area. Akbar Shaikh (pw4) was spraying water near his shop. When Dnyaneshwar reached shop no.8, he saw appellant Munna stabbing in the abdomen of Ganesh and on seeing him, the appellant ran away by jumping over the counter. Akbar Shaikh (pw4) was spraying water near his shop. When Dnyaneshwar reached shop no.8, he saw appellant Munna stabbing in the abdomen of Ganesh and on seeing him, the appellant ran away by jumping over the counter. They chased the appellant but he could not be caught. The appellant went to his hotel. Later on police took him into custody. It is brought on record that this witness had read his statement recorded by police before his evidence. But that alone is not enough to discard his evidence, particularly when his name is appearing in the first information report lodged by deceased Ganesh as a witness. It is brought on record that he is also working in the shop of Chandrakant Darade (pw9). Omission was brought on record that he did not state before police that one Macchindra Darade had also chased the appellant. 10. There is also evidence of Akbar Shaikh (pw4), who stated that he was spraying water near shop no.9. Ganesh went to backside of shop no. 8 and he saw appellant Munna jumping over the counter and running away. Ganesh was saying that he was injured and he should be saved. Immediately thereafter Akbar Shaikh took a vehicle and went to inform Chandrakant Darade (pw9) about the incident. Witness had stated in the cross-examination that on that day he heard name of Munna from people. He was not knowing the appellant till the date of incident. 11. The abovesaid evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Changdeo Darandale (pw11), who proved discovery of knife by the appellant. However, it is brought on record that he is an interested person. He had some relation with Mandabai the mother of deceased Ganesh. Both were prosecuted for abetting suicide of some person. Be that as it may, even if we ignore said discovery panchanama, the other evidence mainly in the form of dying declaration and depositions of the eye witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt. 12. Dr.Munot (pw10) had performed postmortem on the dead body of Ganesh. The postmortem notes are at Exh.37. The said notes corroborate the injuries described by Dr. Khalkar as stated earlier. Dr. Munot has observed following external and internal injuries during postmortem examination. External Injuries. (1) Sutured verticle Midline - supra umbilical wound of 18 c.ms. in length. 12. Dr.Munot (pw10) had performed postmortem on the dead body of Ganesh. The postmortem notes are at Exh.37. The said notes corroborate the injuries described by Dr. Khalkar as stated earlier. Dr. Munot has observed following external and internal injuries during postmortem examination. External Injuries. (1) Sutured verticle Midline - supra umbilical wound of 18 c.ms. in length. (2) Two wounds with drain pipe entering peritoneum cavity near each other in left lumber region of abdomen. (3) Sutured wound 2 c.m. which was entering peritoneum cavity in epigastric on left side. (4) Sutured wound 2 c.m. bone deep on left 8th rib in mid axillary line. (5) Sutured wound on left buttock muscle 3 c.m. deep. (6) Sutured wound 5 c.m. left of left sacrilla joint 2 x 3 c.m. deep. (7) Sutured wound at level of L. 3 c.m. 2 c.m. vertebra deep. (8) Sutured wound 2 c.m. x 5 c.m. deep on left elbow. (9) Sutured wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. muscle deep left knee. Internal Injuries. (1) Very large extensive retro peritoneal haematoma. (2) About 1 litre of blood in peritoneum cavity. (3) Sutured wound on anterior wall of andrum of stomach, about 4 c.m. (4) Sutured wound about 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. on inferior margin of left lobe of liver. (5) Very large perinephric haematoma with injury to right kidney. 13. Deelip Bhusari (pw1) proved spot panchanama. There was pool of blood in shop no.8 which has size admeasuring 12 x 12 ft. The spot panchanama is at Exh.19. Laxman Bhalerao (pw5), Assistant P.S.I. proved inquest panchanama Exh.25. Vishnu Mokate (pw8) has proved panchanama of attachment of clothes of deceased at Exh.30. Subhash Gavate (pw7) had taken muddemal articles attached in this case to the Chemical Analyser. The report of the Chemical Analyser is on record. Balasaheb Mali (pw16) is a panch witness in whose presence appellant Munna @ Shivdas was arrested. Appellant had injury on his right thumb and his shirt was also blood stained and same was attached under panchanama Exh.60. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve this panchanama. 14. It is argued that no statements of doctors were recorded. Dr. Khalkar had issued injury certificate. Dr. Munot has prepared postmortem notes and proved the same. It is argued that there is no enmity between the deceased and the appellant. There was no motive to commit the murder. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve this panchanama. 14. It is argued that no statements of doctors were recorded. Dr. Khalkar had issued injury certificate. Dr. Munot has prepared postmortem notes and proved the same. It is argued that there is no enmity between the deceased and the appellant. There was no motive to commit the murder. However the number of injuries inflicted with deadly weapon like knife and the vital parts of the body on which the injuries were inflicted clearly show that the appellant did intend to cause death. Moreover, Dr. Khalkar has stated that the injuries sustained were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Particularly injury no. 4 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as it had caused internal injuries to vital organs. So case comes both Clauses Firstly and Thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The case does not fall under any of the Exceptions contained in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. I may reproduce following portion from para 15 from the case of Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab [AIR 1959 SC 465], which is as follows. " No evidence or explanation is given about why the appellant thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased with such force that it penetrated the bowels and three coils of the intestines came out of the wound and that digested food oozed out from cuts in three places. In the absence of evidence, or reasonable explanation, that the prisoner did not intend to stab in the stomach with a degree of force sufficient to penetrate that for into the body, or to indicate that his act was a regrettable accident and that he intended otherwise, it would be perverse to conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. Once that intent is established (and no other conclusion is reasonably possible in this case, and in any case it is a question of fact), the rest is a matter for objective determination from the medical and other evidence about the nature and seriousness of the injury. " We are not satisfied that there was any grave and sudden provocation to cause death. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and same deserves to be dismissed. 15. " We are not satisfied that there was any grave and sudden provocation to cause death. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and same deserves to be dismissed. 15. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur on 7.2.2006 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2004 is, therefore, confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.