A. P. BHANGALE, J.:- By this appeal, the appellants question legality and validity of judgment and order dated 23-5-2003 passed by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.113 of 2002 convicting the appellants for offence of murdering Ashok Nilkanth Sorde, resident of Azad Ward. Chimur in furtherance of their common intention. Both the appellants were scntenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1.000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts which led to prosecution of the appellants are as follows: Deceased Ashok Sorde was residing with his elder brother Akash Sorde at Azad Ward, Chimur. Appellants were their neighbourers. Prosecution is that appellant no.2 Bebi had appeared as witness in a partition suit pending between deceased Ashok. Akash (PW-8) on one hand and their paternal uncle Woman Sorde on the other. 3. On 28-6-2002 at about 09.00 p.m. appellant Niranjan was abusing Ashok. Ashok (deceased) accosted Niranjan (accused no. 1) as to why he was abusing. In the result, scuttle (or altercation) took place between Ashok and Niranjan. Niranjan had stabbed Ashok by means of dagger while Bebi (accused no.2) had caught hold of hands of Ashok. Ashok fell down. Niranjan sat on his body and again intlicted blows by means of dagger on the abdomen of Ashok. Thereafter Niranjan went away with weapon. Ashok who was taken to Rural Hospital, Chimur succumbed to injuries on 29-6-2002 at 12.15 a.m. Akash (PW-8) lodged report (FIR Exhibit-29). Accused Niranjan and Bebi were arrested on 29-6-2002 (Arrest Panchanama - Exhibit-44) and examined medically for presence of injuries, if any (vide injury certificate - exhibit-83). Police visited spot and drew panchanama (cxhibit-41). Inquest was also held and dead body of Ashok was referred for post-mortem examination (exhibit-25 - PM Notes). Clothes of deceased as well as clothes of accused were also seized during the course of investigation. It is further case of prosecution that weapon of offence was discovered pursuant to disclosure statement (exhibitA7). Seized clothes and weapon were sent to chemical analyser for examination and report. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chimur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Chandrapur. 5. The trial Court framed charge (exhibit-10) to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Seized clothes and weapon were sent to chemical analyser for examination and report. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chimur who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Chandrapur. 5. The trial Court framed charge (exhibit-10) to which appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove the charge. Direct evidence consists of Kiran Bhansare (PW -2): Ghanshyam (P.W.4); Pournima (PW-5); Sarita (PW-6): Akash (PW-8) while medical evidence consists of Dr. Misar (PW-7) about post-mortem examination of the dead body of victim and injury certificate of accused Niranjan. Rajesli (PW3) and Ravi (PW-10) were examined as panch witnesses. PSI Rangari (PW-11) deposed about investigation done. Thus, placing reliance upon evidence, the trial Court found both the accused guilty of committing offence of murder in furtherence of their common intention and sentenced them accordingly. 7. In support of appeal learned counsel Mr. Daga for appellant no. I submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence as to scuffle or altercation between the appellants and the deceased which resulted into unfortunate incident of death of Ashok. According to Mr. Daga, appellant Niranjan exceeded the right of private defence and could not have been convicted for offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Daga made reference to Raman Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 998 : [2008 ALL SCR 2732] and submitted that in similar case the apex Court had altered conviction and sentence from Section 302 to Section 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, supported impugned judgment and order and contended that the appellants had no excuse whatsoever to cause multiple injuries on vital part viz. abdomen of deceased Ashok were therefore, rightly convicted by the trial Court. 9. From the submissions at the bar, it is not disputed that deceased Ashok met with homicidal death as a result if incident of stabbing. The evidence of eye-witnesses to the occurrence was referred by learned counsel Mr. Daga to emphasis that there was incident of scuffle or altercation between appellant Niranjan and deceased Ashok which had also resulted into abrasion injury to appellant Niranjan. According to Mr. The evidence of eye-witnesses to the occurrence was referred by learned counsel Mr. Daga to emphasis that there was incident of scuffle or altercation between appellant Niranjan and deceased Ashok which had also resulted into abrasion injury to appellant Niranjan. According to Mr. Daga, it may be observed that appellants had in the facts and circumstances of the case exceeded their of private defence and could have been given lesser sentence by the trial Court. 10. Coming to the facts of the case, it appears from the evidence of eye-witness Abdul Majid (PW-1) that the incident occurred in front of the house of Akash (PW-8) in a lane. Niranjan (A-1) and Ashok (deceased) were abusing each other. Niranjan (A-I) took out dagger from his waist and pierced if in the stomach of Ashok. Niranjan kicked Ashok and fell him down. Bebi (A-2) had caught hold of the hands of Ashok. Then Niranjan (A-1) sat on the thighs of Ashok and caused two injuries by dagger to Ashok on chest. Abdul Majid was admittedly 5-6 feet away when he saw the incident. He stated in the course of his cross-examination that he saw scuffle between accused on one side and Ashok on the other side. It appears from the evidence of Abdul Majid (PW -I) that length of dagger was about 12-13 inches with handle and width of blade was about an inch. Blade was straight, sharp on one side. 11. Kiran (PW-2) is another eye-witness who also stated that he saw scuffle between Niranjan (A-I) and Ashok (deceased). Niranjan (A-I) took out knife from his waist and pierced it in the stomach of Ashok. Ashok fell down. Niranjan sat on his thigh and inflicted two injuries on chest of Ashok by means of knife. Kiran (PW -2) admitted that scuffle had taken place between Niranjan and Ashok. When Ashok fell down, Bebi (A-2) was present and caught hold of his hands. 12. Ghanshyam (PW -4) stated that having seen Niranjan assaulting Ashok and wife of Niranjan catching hold of hands of Ashok from behind. Then Niranjan took out a dagger from his Join and inflicted blow into the stomach of Ashok. Wife of Niranjan pulled back the hands of Ashok and fell him down. Then Niranjan sat on the thigh of Ashok and inflicted blow by means of knife on chest and stomach. Niranjan went home with dagger. 13. Then Niranjan took out a dagger from his Join and inflicted blow into the stomach of Ashok. Wife of Niranjan pulled back the hands of Ashok and fell him down. Then Niranjan sat on the thigh of Ashok and inflicted blow by means of knife on chest and stomach. Niranjan went home with dagger. 13. Pornima (PW-5) deposed that there was altercation between Niranjan (A-l) and Ashok (deceased) on road. Bebi (A-2) held both hands of Ashok and Niranjan (A-I) pierced knife in the stomach of Ashok. Thereafter Niranjan sat on the thighs of Ashok and inflicted 2-4 blows on the stomach of Ashok. Then Niranjan ran away from that place. In the course of her cross-examination Pornima stated, "Accused and Ashok were scuffling. It is not true to say that Ashok was beating accused with fist blows". 14. Sarita (PW-6) who is sister-in-law of deceased Ashok described the incident-as follows - "The accused started hurling abuses to Ashok by coming out of his house in the name of his mother and sister. Ashok came out of the house and asked Niranjan as to why he was abusing Ashok." While witness Sarita had called Ashok to come home for dinner, accused Niranjan came near Ashok and inflicted blow by means of knife in the stomach of Ashok. There was scuffle between Niranjan and Ashok before Niranjan inflicted blow on the stomach of Ashok by knife. Ashok fell down and accused no.2 caught hold of his hands from behind. Then Niranjan (A-1) sat on the thighs of Ashok and gave two blows on chest of Ashok. Cross-examination of PW -6 Sarita disclosed the possible reason for dispute as Bebo (A-2) had given evidence against family of Ashok in litigation pending in Tahsil Office between Ashok's family and his uncle Waman. 15. Akash (brother of Ashok) is examined as P.W.8. He deposed that Niranjan (A-I) was abusing Ashok loudly. Ashok had asked Niranjan as to why he was abusing. Niranjan assaulted Ashok and caught hold of his collar while accused no.2 came and caught hold of the hands of Ashok from back-side. Accused no. 1 Niranjan took out dagger and inflicted one blow on stomach of Ashok. Ashok fell down. Thereafter Niranjan sat on the thigh of Ashok while accused no.2 was holding hands of Ashok; Niranjan (A-1) inflicted three blows on stomach and chest of Ashok. Accused no. 1 Niranjan took out dagger and inflicted one blow on stomach of Ashok. Ashok fell down. Thereafter Niranjan sat on the thigh of Ashok while accused no.2 was holding hands of Ashok; Niranjan (A-1) inflicted three blows on stomach and chest of Ashok. Niranjan then went to his house with dagger. His wife also went away. Akash (PW-8) had lodged FIR (exhibit-28) contents of which also corroborate what he deposed. 16. Apart from ocular version of the incident as above, the prosecution also relied upon the evidence of recovery of weapon, of offence. Ravi (PW -10) deposed that Niranjan (A-1) told police in his presence that he had kept dagger at the corner of his house. Disclosure statement was recorded (exhibit-47) pursuant to which dagger was recovered from inside the house of Niranjan under panchanama (exhibit-48). C.A. Report indicated that weapon was found blood-stained with human blood of group "B" (which was found to be the blood group of deceased Ashok). 17. Medical evidence by Dr. Misar indicates that deceased Ashok had died due to cardia-respiratory arrest due to hypovolumic shock due to internal bleeding because of multiple injuries over abdomen. Dr. Misar also expressed her opinion that multiple injuries observed by her on abdomen can be caused by sharp, pointed and hard weapon like dagger (seized in the case), Dr. Misar also clearly opined that the injuries mentioned in postmortem notes (exhibit-25) cannot be self-inflicted and although she did not find punctured wound on liver, the medical opinion as to cause of death as above read' in juxta-position to the occular evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that (a). Niranjan (A-1) had started abusing Ashok; (b), He came prepared armed with dagger; (c), When Ashok questioned Niranjan why he was abusing. Niranjan came and inflicted a blow by means of dagger; (d). Bebi (A-2) held hands of Ashok from behind indicating that she was sharing common intention with Niranjan and acted to prevent Ashok from escaping the assault; (e). Niranjan felled Ashok down, sat on his thighes and inflicted more blows by means of dagger which resulted in death of Ashok; (f). Doctor who performed post-mortem examination found multiple injuries on the abdomen described in post-mortem notes as below: "Stab injuries over abdomen three in no, (1) In epigastric area 1" length x 1 cm breadth x 6" depth. Edges clean cut and sharp. Doctor who performed post-mortem examination found multiple injuries on the abdomen described in post-mortem notes as below: "Stab injuries over abdomen three in no, (1) In epigastric area 1" length x 1 cm breadth x 6" depth. Edges clean cut and sharp. (2) Atlevel of umbilicus (Rt) side 11" length x I cm breadth x 6" depth. Edges clean cut and sharp. (3) In Rt. Hypochondrium 4" distal to first I" length x I cm breadth x 6" depth. Blood stain present at the site of injury and over the abdomen. Edges clean cut and sharp. (4) L.W. 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm Lt abdomen." The nature of injuries indicates a case of homicidal death when read along with rest of the evidence. (g). During the course of investigation. blood-stained weapon of offence was discovered from the house of Niranjan (a-1) pursuant to disclosure statement made by him: and (h). Chemical Analyser's opinion indicating clearly that weapon (dagger) was stained with human of "B" group (which was that of deceased Ashok). 18. All these factors together bring the culpable homicide within the ambit of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code amounting to murder. Moreso when hath the appellants defended the trial pleading total denial and alleging falsity of the prosecution case. Even assuming that the appellants can take up a belated pica of private defence, in this case no foundation \vas laid anywhere in evidence to enable the Court to accept such plea. 19. Ruling in Raman Vs. State of Kerala [2008 ALL SCR 2732] (supra) cited by learned counsel for appellants cannot extend any help to appellants herein. In the said case, deceased had first pulled the collar of appellant's shirt and tried to press his neck, but in the process, the appellant therein inflicted knife blow on the abdomen with a view to escape from the clutches of the deceased. The Apex Court. in the circumstances, held that appellant had clearly exceeded the right of defence and his conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304, Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. The facts in the present case are totally different inasmuch as accused no.1 Niranjan had come prepared with dagger (deadly weapon) assisted by his wife Bebi (accused no.2) who had held hands of Ashok while Niranjan inflicted 3-4 blows by means of dagger on the abdomen (vital part of body) of Ashok. The facts in the present case are totally different inasmuch as accused no.1 Niranjan had come prepared with dagger (deadly weapon) assisted by his wife Bebi (accused no.2) who had held hands of Ashok while Niranjan inflicted 3-4 blows by means of dagger on the abdomen (vital part of body) of Ashok. Therefore, it cannot be said that merely because an abrasion (a minor injury) was found on the person of Niranjan, the crime was committed in heat of passion in the scuffle or altercation. The Trial Court has correctly observed that accused shared common intention and were equally liable for the same punishment. 20. In view of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder if offender commits an act with intention of causing death or secondly, with an intention to cause such bodily injury as he knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom injury is caused or with intention of causing bodily injuries and such bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or if offender commits act knowing that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. There are exceptions when culpable homicide is not murder viz. when offender is deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation and causes death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Even in such case the exception will operate when offender does not voluntarily provoke or seeks such provocation as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly, such provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant and that the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. In such case, the question as to whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder, is a question of fact to be decided whether the offence was culpable homicide or murder. In such case, the question as to whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder, is a question of fact to be decided whether the offence was culpable homicide or murder. Further, when offender in exercise of good faith of the right of private defence of person or property exceeds such right of private defence without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence, then culpable homicide would not amount to murder. Third exception is offence committed by a public servant or any person aiding a public servant exceeding the powers given according to law and causing death by doing an act which he believes in good faith to be lawful and necessary for due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards a person whose death is caused. Fourthly, culpable homicide would not amount to murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In such case, it is immaterial as to which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly, culpable homicide would not amount to murder if person whose death is caused is above 18 years who suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Looking to these exceptions incorporated in Section 300. IPC we do not find appellants coming within any exception so as to plead that the culpable homicide committed in this case would not amount to murder. 21. In this case, intention of appellants to cause death of Ashok is writ large and can safely be inferred from their active and joint participation in the incident of murder. Plea of appellants exceeding a right of private defence is not acceptable because it is neither reasonable nor probable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There was no excuse for appellant Niranjan to come prepared with deadly weapon like dagger without any apprehension from the side of Ashok. Such plea by appellants is not at all supportable even upon preponderance of probabilities for want of any foundation from evidence led in the case. There was no excuse for appellant Niranjan to come prepared with deadly weapon like dagger without any apprehension from the side of Ashok. Such plea by appellants is not at all supportable even upon preponderance of probabilities for want of any foundation from evidence led in the case. One who caused six inches deep stab wounds (3-4 in number) on abdomen - vital part of victim, cannot be allowed to plead excuse that he had no intention to kill deceased. It is common knowledge that when deep stab injuries are caused by dagger or knife, they are extremely dangerous to life especially when large blood vessels or deeper structures in body are damaged. Stab wounds may produce fatal internal damage. The accused coming to the spot of incident, shaling common intention had caused three or four multiple injuries by sharp edged dagger to Ashok on his abdomen which resulted in his death. Nature of injuries found on the body of Ashok and weapon used for causing injuries on vital part of body give rise to inescapable inference as to common intention of appellants to kill Ashok. All eye-witnesses are, barring minor discrepancies in minute details pertaining to number of blows and part of body on which they landed, consistent on material particulars of incident and intention of the appellants inflicting 3-4 stab wounds upon Ashok. Intention is self-evident when read in juxtaposition to medical evidence. Accused no.2 Bebi was equally liable in crime of murder in furtherance of common intention along with her husband Niranjan (A-I) because she was not only present at the time of crime, but also by her act of holding hands of Ashok from behind, facilitated the offence. The acts of Bebi (A-2), therefore, facilitated or promoted actual inflicting of blows by Niranjan who came prepared with dagger. The existence of common intention can be inferred from attending circumstances of the case and conduct of accused. Direct evidence of common intention is not necessary as it can develop even during the course of an occurrence. Hence, it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances established in the case. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court was justified to hold both the accused appellants guilty of committing offence of murder in further of there common intention and rightly convicted appellants herein. 23. The appeal is, therefore, without merit and deserves dismissal. Hence, it has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances established in the case. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the trial Court was justified to hold both the accused appellants guilty of committing offence of murder in further of there common intention and rightly convicted appellants herein. 23. The appeal is, therefore, without merit and deserves dismissal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.