Judgment (Per A.P.Lavande, J) By this appeal the appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused.) takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 16th November, 2002 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No. 97/2001 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Briefly, the prosecution case is as under: On 31.1.2001 at about 9.15 p.m. P.W.1 Chandrakant Ruparel and his father Jamnadas were proceedings towards their house on a motor cycle after closing grocery shop. Deceased Jamnadas was driving the motor cycle and Chandrakant was sitting on the pillion seat. Chandrakant was having a bag with cash of Rs. 15,350/- in it. As soon as they reached in front of their house and were about to park the motor cycle three persons came towards them and the accused snatched the bag containing money from the hand of Chandrakant and started running away. Chandrakant chased him and caught him at some distance. Deceased Jamnadas also ran towards the accused. Accused tried to escape from the clutches of Chandrakant. In the scuffle, the accused stabbed deceased Jamnadas with the help of knife which he was possessing on account of which Jamnadas sustained injuries near his chest as well as on the back and he fell down. Thereafter, some persons in the locality came there. They also caught the accused. In the meantime information was given to the Kalamb Police Station on phone pursuant to which police reached on the spot immediately. The accused was taken to the police station along with the bag containing money and the weapon and was arrested and the knife and the bag containing money were seized at the police station. Thereafter, Chandrakant came to the police station and lodged report pursuant to which offences under Sections 394 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the accused. In the course of investigation, the complicity of another six accused in the commission of crime was disclosed. Out of the said six accused, five accused were traced and arrested. However, one of them viz. S.K.Rahim could not be traced since he was absconding. Police visited the spot of incident and conducted spot panchanama. In the course of investigation, the complicity of another six accused in the commission of crime was disclosed. Out of the said six accused, five accused were traced and arrested. However, one of them viz. S.K.Rahim could not be traced since he was absconding. Police visited the spot of incident and conducted spot panchanama. Meanwhile Jamnadas was reported dead in Civil Hospital, Yavatmal. Therefore, the offence was converted to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The dead body of deceased Jamnadas was referred for post-mortem examination. Articles seized were sent for analysis to Nagpur. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kalamb against six accused for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon committal, the Additional Sessions Court framed charge under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code against accused nos. 1 to 6. The appellant was accused no.1 before the trial Court. They claimed to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and produced several documents. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. The defence of the accused is of total denial. The trial court after appreciating the evidence held that the offences under Sections 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code were made out only against the appellant/accused and consequently convicted and sentenced the accused as above and acquitted five accused. 3. We have heard Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Ahirkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 4. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the order of conviction passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside on the following grounds; i) The prosecution evidence does not establish offences under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt against the accused; ii) No cogent evidence has been led by the prosecution regarding seizure of the bag and the knife from the accused inasmuch as the Panchanamas of seizure of bag and the knife were conducted at the police station and not on the spot; iii) The prosecution witnesses P.W. 2 Sanjay and P.W.3 Sachin who have been termed as chance witnesses by the trial Court cannot be believed having regard to their evidence. iv) Absence of blood on the knife which is alleged to have been seized from the accused clearly belies the prosecution case that the knife was used by the accused in the commission of the murder of deceased. v) There is a serious doubt that it was the accused who snatched the bag containing money from Chandrakant and that he stabbed deceased Jamnadas causing him injuries resulting in his death; vi ) In any event, the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt having regard to the entire prosecution evidence. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ahirkar the learned A.P.P. has supported the impugned order of conviction and sentence. He submitted that the evidence on record clearly proves beyond reasonable doubt the offences under Sections 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the record. 7. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Chandrakant Ruparel who is an eye witness in this case and also upon the evidence of P.W. 2 Sanjay Thorle and P.W. 3 Sachin Bhalkar who are the neighbours of deceased Jamnadas. It would be, therefore, appropriate to scrutinise their evidence first. P.W. 1 Chandrakant deposed that on 31.1.2001 at about 9.15 p.m. he along with his father Jamnadas were proceeding to their house on his two wheeler vehicle after closing the grocery shop. Deceased Jamnadas was driving the vehicle and he was sitting on pillion seat and was having one bag containing an amount of Rs. 15,350/-. His house is at about five minutes distance from the shop. When they reached near their house and were about to park the motor cycle three persons came close to the motor cycle and one of them snatched his bag containing money and started running towards Ganesh Mangal Karyalaya. He chased him and caught him and that person is the accused. He further deposed that his father also followed him and reached near them while the scuffle was going on. At that time the accused stabbed his father with knife on account of which he suffered injuries to left side near the chest. The witness identified the knife Article 1 as the weapon with which the accused had stabbed his father. He further deposed that his father also followed him and reached near them while the scuffle was going on. At that time the accused stabbed his father with knife on account of which he suffered injuries to left side near the chest. The witness identified the knife Article 1 as the weapon with which the accused had stabbed his father. He further deposed that thereafter his brother Nilesh and other 3-4 persons from the vicinity reached there but he does not remember the names of those persons. Thereafter, he and his brother Nilesh caught hold of the accused on the spot and the other persons who had come there and took his father inside their house. At that time some one informed the incident to the police on phone. The police arrived on the spot immediately and the accused was handed over to the police. Thereafter, Jamnadas was taken to the Civil Hospital, Yavatmal. However, before that he went to the Police Station, Kalamb and lodged report Exh. 94 and Police registered F.I.R. (Exh.95) against the accused. In the cross-examination he deposed that he did not know the accused prior to the incident. He had stated to the police that the scuffle had taken place between them and accused Sikandarsingh. The witness was confronted with the report in which there is no mention about the scuffle. The witness stated that he had stated about the scuffle to the police. He denied the suggestion that the actual culprit ran away and only thereafter he caught hold of the accused while he was passing on the road. He also denied the suggestions that neither the bag containing money was snatched nor the accused had stabbed his father. Upon the close scrutiny of the evidence of this witness, we have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of this witness inspires confidence and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Moreover, the evidence of this witness stands corroborated not only by P.W. 2 Sanjay and P.W. 3 Sachin but also by medical evidence as well as by spot panchanama to which we will make reference a little later. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the accused was caught on the spot and was handed over to the police and was arrested within a very short time of the incident. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the accused was caught on the spot and was handed over to the police and was arrested within a very short time of the incident. In so far as the omission regarding the scuffle vis-a-vis police statement is concerned, in our opinion, the same is minor one and no much weight can be attached to the same so as to discredit the natural testimony of this witness. 8. P.W. 2 Sanjay Thorle who is the neighbour of Chandrakant has deposed that on 31.1.2001 at about 9.20 p.m. he heard a noise and as such he rushed towards that side and he noticed that scuffle was going on at some distance away from the house of Jamnadas. At that time he saw Chandrakant Ruparel and Nilesh Ruparel holding one person and that person had one knife in his right hand. He further deposed that he snatched the weapon from the hand of the person and threw it on the ground. Thereafter, he along with Nilesh and Chandrakant caught hold of the accused. He had been observing a person from Kalamb for some time. At that time he saw Jamnadas lying on the ground in an injured condition with injuries. He could not tell as to how Jamnadas had received injuries. He also noticed blood stains on the road. Thereafter, they immediately brought the deceased to the Civil Hospital. The witness identified the knife Article 1 as a weapon which was in the hand of the accused. The witness has denied the suggestion that as the accused was from Hinganghat he was not knowing him and he was telling his name on the say of Chandrakant. P.W. 3 Sachin who happens to be the neighbour of Chandrakant has deposed that on 31.1.2001 at about 9.20 p.m. he was returning home from the Bus Stand. He saw Chandrakant and his father Jamnadas proceedings towards their house on a two wheeler vehicle which was driven by Jamnadas. When he reached near Mangal Karyalaya situated at a distance of about 7 to 8 houses from the house of Jamnadas he observed one person running towards the lane. Then he went near the spot of incident and saw that Chandrakant, Nilesh and Sanjay were holding the accused and the accused was trying to escape and there was a scuffle going on between them. Then he went near the spot of incident and saw that Chandrakant, Nilesh and Sanjay were holding the accused and the accused was trying to escape and there was a scuffle going on between them. Chandrakant asked him to inform the police on phone and, therefore, he informed the police on phone about the incident. Sanjay told him that Ruparel Kaka i.e. deceased Jamanadas was attacked. Witness identified the accused (original accused no.1) as a person who was caught by Chandrakant, Nilesh and Sanjay. Thereafter, Jamnadas was taken to the Civil Hospital in private vehicle and accused was handed over to police. In cross-examination he stated that his relations with the family of Jamnadas were cordial. He further deposed that when he reached there injured Jamnadas was already taken to his house. When he reached there he heard cries of family members of Jamnadas. The witness volunteered that he saw that Chandrakant and others had caught hold of the accused, when he reached there. He reached there. He has admitted that he got frightened because of the incident. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Chandrakant on account of cordial relation with Ruparel family. Nothing tangible has been brought in the crossexamination of this witness to discard his testimony. The evidence of P.W. 2 Sanjay and P.W. 3 Sachin corroborate the evidence of P.W. 1 Chandrakant on material aspects and we have no reason to dis-believe the version of these two witnesses. From the evidence of these two witnesses it is clear that P. W. 2 Sanjay had reached first when Chandrakant had caught hold of the accused and soon thereafter P.W. 3 Sachin had reached the spot. It is pertinent to note that both these witnesses are residing in the neighbourhood of Chandrakant. It was, therefore quite natural for them to come to the spot on hearing the noise. There is absolutely no reason to doubt their testimony and defence of the accused that both these witnesses are supporting the version of Chandrakant on account of cordial relation with the family of Chandrakant has no substance. 9. At this stage, we would like to deal with one important aspect. The trial court has branded both these witnesses as chance witnesses. We fail to understand as to how these witnesses can be termed as chance witnesses. 9. At this stage, we would like to deal with one important aspect. The trial court has branded both these witnesses as chance witnesses. We fail to understand as to how these witnesses can be termed as chance witnesses. Being neighbours of Chandrakant it was quite natural for both of them to come on the spot on hearing the noise and there was nothing unnatural about their conduct. We deem it appropriate to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rana Partap and others vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1983 Supreme Court, 680). Dealing with the expression chance witness in criminal trials, the Apex Court in paragraph 3 observed as follows: “3. There were three eye-witnesses. One was the brother of the deceased and the other two were a milk vendor of a neighbouring village, who was carrying milk to the dairy and a vegetable and fruit hawker, who was pushing his laden cart along the road. The learned Sessions Judge and the learned counsel described both the independent witnesses as 'chance witnesses' implying thereby that their evidence was suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. We do not understand the expression 'chance witnesses'. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passerby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witnesses' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are 'chance witnesses' even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence'. Having regard to the observations of the Apex Court quoted above, the above two witnesses cannot be termed as chance witnesses. Their evidence being natural inspires confidence. Having regard to the observations of the Apex Court quoted above, the above two witnesses cannot be termed as chance witnesses. Their evidence being natural inspires confidence. Thus, the version of P.W.1 Chandrakant stands corroborated on material aspects by P.W. 2 Sanjay Thorle and P.W. 3 Sachin Bhalkar. 10. In so far as the homicidal death of deceased Jamnadas is concerned there is no serious challenge thrown by the accused. The evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Hemant Godbole who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Jamnadas on 1.2.2001 clearly establishes that the death of Jamnadas was homicidal. He deposed that during the course of post-mortem he observed the following injuries. i) Stab wound 2 inches below left nipple, 3 ½ inch left to middle line- 1 ½ x ½ x cavity deep, transversly oblique angles acute, marings clean with lateral lower angle abrated. Direction . backward, upward and medially. ii) Stab wound . over back of trunk . 6. below right scapula 3. right to middline at the level of 1.1 vertibra, 1 ¼ x ¼ x cavity deep, angles acute, Margins clean. Direction . front, upward and laterally. iii) Stab wound . over back. 2 ½ . below injury No. 2. 2. right to midline. 1. x ¼ . x cavity deep, angles acute, Margins clean. Direction . anteriarly and laterally. According to the witness, the injuries were ante18 mortem and there were corresponding internal injuries as mentioned in column 20 of the report. He further deposed that cause of death was shock due to stab injuries and the injuries were sufficient to cause death. The witness confirmed the contents of the post-mortem Exh. 122 as correct. He also deposed that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the knife Article 1 which was shown to him. Nothing tangible has been brought in the cross-examination of this witness. The medical evidence clearly establishes that the death of Jamnadas was homicidal. 11. In so far as the seizure of the bag containing money and the knife (Article 1) are concerned, no doubt the evidence of pancha witness P.W. 4 Gajanan Raut does not support the prosecution inasmuch he has stated that at the time of seizure the accused was not present. 11. In so far as the seizure of the bag containing money and the knife (Article 1) are concerned, no doubt the evidence of pancha witness P.W. 4 Gajanan Raut does not support the prosecution inasmuch he has stated that at the time of seizure the accused was not present. However, P.W. 6 P.S.O. Dilip Bijwe has deposed about the seizure of the bag containing money and the knife pursuant to Panchanamas Exhs. 100 and 101. He has also proved the arrest panchanma (Exh.102) of accused. In the absence of any other evidence having been brought on record by the accused we find no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W. 6 Dilip about the seizure of the bag containing money, knife and arrest of the accused. No doubt the seizures of knife and bag containing money have been effected at the Police Station and not on the spot. However, the fact remains that Dilip has deposed that after a message on telephone was received at the Police Station that Jamnadas was stabbed the police staff went to the spot and they brought the accused along with the weapon and one bag containing money to the police station. Having regard to this evidence which has not been shaken in cross-examination the seizure of the bag containing money and the knife in the police station and not on the spot cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. No doubt P.W. 1 Chandrakant, P.W. 2 Sanjay and P.W. 3 Sachin have not deposed that the bag containing money and the knife were brought to the Police Station along with the accused but this fact by itself would not be sufficient to doubt the prosecution case regarding the seizure of bag with money and the knife. 12. Insofar as the absence of blood on the knife as disclosed by chemical analyser's report Exh. 129 is concerned we hold that the same is not fatal inasmuch as it is on record that the articles were sent for chemical analysis on 5.2.2001 and the report is dated 3.12.2001. Having regard to the time that lapsed between sending of the weapon and the examination of the weapon the possibility of disappearance of blood on the knife cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the time that lapsed between sending of the weapon and the examination of the weapon the possibility of disappearance of blood on the knife cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the cogent evidence led by the prosecution we find that absence of blood on the knife is not fatal to the prosecution case. 13. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, we have no doubt that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be faulted. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed on the accused are maintained.