ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.R.Borkar, J.) 1. This is an appeal preferred by accused - Lahu Malhari Kharate, who is convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by committing murder of his wife, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the learned II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2004 on 6.2.2006. 2. It is case of the prosecution that about 2 months prior to 16.7.2004, deceased Vandana married the appellant and thereafter had been residing with the appellant at his house at Vasantnagar Tanda Killari, Taluka Ausa, District Latur. On 16.7.2004 at about 7.30 a.m. Vandana was cooking in the house. The appellant asked her why on earlier day she had gone to collect the fire wood instead of going for labour work and he started abusing. Then he took a knife and gave blows on chest, abdomen and left arm of Vandana. She raised shouts. On hearing quarrel and shouts, neighbours - (pw1) Vatchala Gaikwad, (pw3) Manubai Kharate, (pw4) Nilkanth Gaikwad, (pw5) Satish Kharate and Vandana’s brother (pw6) Amrut Gaikwad gathered. It is case of (pw6) Amrut that he scuffled with the accused and thereafter the accused-appellant ran away. 3. Originally besides appellant, his brother, mother, sister and sister’s husband were made accused, but they are acquitted by the Sessions Court. It is further prosecution case that in an injured state Vandana was taken to the police station at Killari where Head Constable (pw11) Bashid Shaikh recorded the statement of Vandana and thereafter Vandana was taken first to the Rural Hospital at Killari and then to the Civil Hospital, Latur. She succumbed to the injuries at about 11.40 a.m. on the same day. 4. The prosecution mainly relied upon the statement of deceased Vandana recorded by Head Constable (pw11) Bashid Shaikh, the statements of the neighbours and brother of the deceased, the spot panchanama, the evidence of the doctor who had examined the deceased. 5. Dr. Pandurang Kondiba Jadhav (pw9) performed postmortem on the dead body of deceased Vandana on 16.7.2004 itself between 4.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and found following injuries :- "1. Mark of vanasection over both legs. 2. Intercostal drainage in situ in right 4th intercostal region. 3. 5. Dr. Pandurang Kondiba Jadhav (pw9) performed postmortem on the dead body of deceased Vandana on 16.7.2004 itself between 4.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. and found following injuries :- "1. Mark of vanasection over both legs. 2. Intercostal drainage in situ in right 4th intercostal region. 3. Stab wound over left parasternal region, in 5th intercostal space, extends from intercostal space to mediasteinum, right lung, lung punctured, blood collected in right cage, of size 2 x 1 cm. 4. Stab found over left illiac region extended medially upward, upto total abdominal wall, size 1.4 cm. x 0.5 c.m., sharp margin. 5. Stab wound over left infra-scapularegion extended upward medially, lung puncture, blood in cage, size 1 x 0.5 c.m. 6. Stab wound over left posterior axillary border, size 1.5 x 1/2 cm. 7. Two stab wound over left arm lower third 1 x 0.5 cm. each.” On internal examination he found punctured wound on pleura and that both the lungs were pale and punctured at wound site. According to the doctor Vandana died due to haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries. The doctor also stated that the stab injury was possible with knife. 6. It may be noted that so far as first two injuries are concerned, they are part of the treatment and cannot be said to be inflicted on the deceased by the appellant. So the appellant is responsible for only injury nos. 3 to 7 and internal injuries. It may also be noted that 3 of the stab injuries were on chest and abdominal part, one injury was on the back and two stab wounds were on the left arm. 7. The doctor did not say that any of the injuries or all injuries cumulatively was/were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. To this aspect, we may advert at a latter stage. 8. (Pw1) Vatchala Gaikwad is an eye witness. She is residing just opposite the house of the appellant and Vandana. She stated that on the day of the incident, she heard quarrel between the appellant and Vandana on the ground of not providing utensils at the time of the marriage. It is also stated that there was also demand of money for purchasing motor cycle. Due to sudden hue and cry, she went to see as to what was the matter. She saw the appellant was abusing Vandana. It is also stated that there was also demand of money for purchasing motor cycle. Due to sudden hue and cry, she went to see as to what was the matter. She saw the appellant was abusing Vandana. He was beating Vandana for not providing utensils and providing damaged cot and not providing money for purchasing motor cycle. He also asked Vandana why she had gone to bring fire wood. Thereafter the appellant gave blows with knife to Vandana on her stomach, chest and left arm. Vandana was shouting loudly. (pw1) Vatchala, (pw6) Amrut Gaikwad and her husband saw that Vandana had fallen on the ground. She was writhing in pain. Blood was oozing from her body. The husband of Vatchala and Amrut tried to catchhold of the accused, but he ran away. 9. In cross-examination of (pw1) Vatchala some minor contradictions were brought on record, such as that the witness did not say that her husband stopped brushing the teeth on hearing the shouts or that they had not seen Vandana lying in pool of blood and that one Vinayak had accompanied them to the hospital. These are minor contradictions. The presence of (pw1) Vatchala at the spot is natural. 10. The prosecution examined (pw3) Manubai Kharate, (pw4) Nilkanth Gaikwad and (pw5) Satish Kharate who are also neighbours at Exhs. 49, 52 and 56. It appears from their evidence that they came at the spot on hearing shouts of Vandana, but they did not actually see the appellant inflicting blows on the deceased, however, they had seen the appellant with knife and Vandana in injured condition. Therefore, their evidence clearly supports the prosecution case. 11. Moreover, as per the evidence on record, only Vandana and her husband were at the house and none else was in the house. The incident had taken place in the house. 12. There is also evidence of (pw6) Amrut who is brother of the deceased. He stated that he had gone to that side while searching for labourers. He rushed on hearing hue and cry. Then he saw a knife in the hand of the appellant. He was assaulting with it on Vandana. He tried to catchhold of the accused and he scuffled with him, but the appellant ran away. 13. He stated that he had gone to that side while searching for labourers. He rushed on hearing hue and cry. Then he saw a knife in the hand of the appellant. He was assaulting with it on Vandana. He tried to catchhold of the accused and he scuffled with him, but the appellant ran away. 13. So far as the presence of (pw6) Amrut at the spot is concerned, other witnesses say that he came there on hearing hue and cry. Omission was brought on record in the statement of this witness that he did not state before the police that first they had taken Vandana to the police station and then to the hospital. In our opinion, that cannot be considered as very material omission in view of the circumstances of the present case, particularly the evidence of Head Constable (pw11) Bashid Shaikh and the documents produced by him which show that after the statement was recorded, Vandana was sent to the hospital. There is, however, omission that (pw6) Amrut actually saw the appellant inflicting blows on Vandana. There is also omission that he had seen the appellant with knife. However, we have occasion to consider the original statement before police and we find that so far as this second omission is concerned, (pw6) Amrut did say that there was knife in the hand of the appellant and Vandana was injured. 14. The best corroboration to the prosecution case is in the form of dying declaration of deceased Vandana. It is a short statement, in which Vandana stated that she married two months prior to the incident and was residing with her husband. On 16.7.2004 while she was cooking, her husband questioned her for going on earlier day for collecting fire wood instead of going for labour work and abused and then inflicted blows by knife on her chest, abdomen and left arm. It is stated that Ankush Malhari Kharate (who is original accused no. 5 and who was shown to be absconding during trial by the Sessions Court) and others have separated them. So we have to go by this dying declaration. The original accused no. 5 Ankush had in fact intervened in the quarrel. This circumstance itself gives credibility to the statement of deceased Vandana. It is most natural short version of the incident given by the injured. 15. So we have to go by this dying declaration. The original accused no. 5 Ankush had in fact intervened in the quarrel. This circumstance itself gives credibility to the statement of deceased Vandana. It is most natural short version of the incident given by the injured. 15. In his statement Head Constable (pw11) Bashid Shaikh not only proved the said statement of deceased Vandana, but he further stated that thereafter he gave letter to the hospital for admitting Vandana in the hospital and to examine her. The said letter is Exh.74. The dying declaration is treated as the first information report and was registered at police station at 8.20 a.m. So no time was lost. The letter Exh.74 shows that Vandana had first taken to the police station where she gave statement and then she was taken to the hospital. 16. At Exh.63 there is statement of the doctor who admitted Vandana in the Rural Hospital at Killari. (Pw8) Ashruba Jagannath Jadhav stated that Vandana was brought to his hospital at 7.45 a.m. and he found two injuries, namely, C.L.W. on left arm 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. and other C.L.W. which was like stab wound over left side of chest caused within 1 to 4 hours. He proved certificate Exh.64. The doctor stated that he had examined entire body and found two injuries. That appears to be a mis-statement. We cannot believe that there would be only two injuries. In the postmortem notes, as we have referred to earlier, it is mentioned that there were in all six injuries. The patient was in the Rural Hospital for 35 minutes as admitted by the doctor. It shows that the doctor was not diligent enough to record all injuries, otherwise he would have mentioned injury at least on the abdomen to which reference was made even in the letter Exh.74 by Head Constable (pw11) Bashid Shaikh. The admission of Dr. Jadhav that there were only two injuries shows his negligence in not examining Vandana properly. Perhaps it is possible that he might have concentrated on the main injury which was on the chest and in giving emergency treatment to the patient may not have attended to other injuries. But in that case, he should have said so. Jadhav that there were only two injuries shows his negligence in not examining Vandana properly. Perhaps it is possible that he might have concentrated on the main injury which was on the chest and in giving emergency treatment to the patient may not have attended to other injuries. But in that case, he should have said so. However, benefit of this would not go to the accused-appellant, as Vandana was immediately taken to the Civil Hospital and died at about 11.40 a.m. on the same day. Moreover, in dying declaration itself Vandana has stated about injuries on her chest, abdomen and left arm. 17. The prosecution examined (pw2) Rajendra Bansode to prove spot panchanama Exh.47. It is argued before us that in the spot panchanama the knife was found at the place of the incident, but it is not stated that there was any blood on the knife. It is also stated that no blood was found fallen on the ground. The knife was sent to the Chemical Analyser and blood was found by the Chemical Analyser. It may be noted that the report of the Chemical Analyser is on scientific tests and during examination even traces of blood can be detected. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there was no intention to cause death as immediate motive was of trivial nature. As stated in dying declaration, the appellant attacked Vandana, because on earlier day she had gone to collect fire wood instead of going for doing labour work. It may be noted that these are poor persons who live on wages earned and, therefore, wages of even one day are important for them. Moreover, the dying declaration was recorded in peculiar condition. Deceased Vandana was fighting for life and we cannot expect her to give all details of previous history. The other witnesses examined including (pw6) Amrut have stated that there were previous demands of various articles and dissatisfaction over providing rotten cot. 19. It is argued before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that Dr. Jadhav who performed postmortem examination has not stated that any of the injuries or all injuries cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 19. It is argued before us by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that Dr. Jadhav who performed postmortem examination has not stated that any of the injuries or all injuries cumulatively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to the learned counsel the offence wound be under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code as there was no intention to cause death or injuries caused were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has referred to the case of Rajinder vs State of Haryana [ AIR 2006 SC 2257 ]. In that case, we may refer to paras 22 to 24 in which the case of Virsa Singh vs State of Punjab [ AIR 1958 SC 465 ] is referred. In the case before Their Lordships the accused had caused single fire-arm injury to deceased and injury was on the thigh and in the facts of the said case it was held that the offence committed was under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Thus the single injury was not on vital part. 21. The other case cited is State of Rajasthan vs Jora Ram [2005 AIR SC 2393]. In that case bruise was found on front of neck of deceased. The medical evidence showed that there was bleeding of trachea as a result of that injury and bleeding resulting in clotting of blood in trachea leading to asphyxia. The injury was not attributed to the accused. It was not established that injury which ultimately resulted in death of deceased was intended by any one. In the said facts it was held that the offence committed was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 22. In this case the witnesses have stated about previous demands of various articles. Moreover, as many as six stab injuries were inflicted one after another. Some were on vital parts of the body like chest and abdomen. The weapon used is deadly weapon. Injury no. 3 was a stab wound over left parasternal region, in 5th intercostal space, extends from intercostal space to mediasteinum, right lung, lung punctured, blood collected in right cage, of size 2 x 1 cm. The injury no. Some were on vital parts of the body like chest and abdomen. The weapon used is deadly weapon. Injury no. 3 was a stab wound over left parasternal region, in 5th intercostal space, extends from intercostal space to mediasteinum, right lung, lung punctured, blood collected in right cage, of size 2 x 1 cm. The injury no. 4 as referred in postmortem notes was a stab wound over left illiac region extended medially upward, upto total abdominal wall, size 1.4 cm. x 0.5 c.m., sharp margin. In the internal examination Dr. Jadhav found that there was punctured wound to pleura and both the lungs were punctured. In our opinion, injury no. 3 individually or at least in any event said two injuries cumulatively was/were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in fact they did cause death within less than five hours in spite of immediate medical treatment. It is not that merely because learned Public Prosecutor has omitted to ask Dr. Jadhav whether any or all injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we should hold that case does not fall under Section 300 Thirdly of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion, this Court can form the necessary opinion having regard to the injuries proved. 23. In the case of Ananda Ramdas Shirsat vs State of Maharashtra [2004 (1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 744], similar situation arose. The doctor has not stated that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature. It was held that even if doctor has not specifically stated so, it would not affect the prosecution case in any manner. It was expected of Public Prosecutor to have sought opinion of doctor on the aspect of sufficiency of injuries to cause death which was not done in that case. However, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased, it was held that it would not make any difference or affect the case in any manner. The Court formed opinion that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature. 24. However, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased, it was held that it would not make any difference or affect the case in any manner. The Court formed opinion that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature. 24. In the case of Brij Bhukhan and others vs The State of Uttar Pradesh [ AIR 1957 SC 474 ], although medical evidence did not say that any one of the injuries on the body of deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature the Court looking to the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased inferred from them that the assailants intended to cause death of the deceased. It was also observed at the end of para 6 that even if none of the injuries by themselves was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of deceased, cumulatively they were certainly sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 25. In the present case, in our opinion, the injury on the chest was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Vandana. In any case the injuries on the chest and abdomen were cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and in fact they caused death within a very short time in spite of medical treatment. In our opinion, therefore, present case falls under Clause Thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 26. In our opinion, the dying declaration, the evidence of (pw1) Vatchala and other neighbours are credible. They proved that it was the appellant who had caused injuries to deceased Vandana. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased Vandana. The injuries were also caused with intention to cause the death of deceased Vandana. In the circumstances, in our opinion, this appeal must fail. 27. Before parting with the judgment, we find it imperative to observe that the (pw8) Dr. Ashruba Jagannath Jadhav of Rural Hospital, Killari failed to notice all the injuries appearing on the person of Vandana while issuing injury certificate Exh.64. The said Medical Officer examined in Court even went on to depose that there were no other injuries than noticed by him on the person of deceased Vandana. We are in fact surprised to note that the Medical Officer (pw8) Dr. The said Medical Officer examined in Court even went on to depose that there were no other injuries than noticed by him on the person of deceased Vandana. We are in fact surprised to note that the Medical Officer (pw8) Dr. Ashruba Jadhav failed to notice all the injuries appearing on the person of Vandana when Police Head Constable (pw11) Bashid Shaikh in his letter Exh.74 addressed to Medical Officer (pw8) Dr. Ashruba Jadhav had disclosed that there were injuries on abdomen region of deceased Vandana. The Medical Officer (pw9) Dr. Pandurang Kondiba Jadhav (Exh.65) who conducted post mortem of deceased Vandana also noticed six stab injuries on the person of deceased including stab injury on the stomach region. The injuries described by (pw9) Dr. Pandurang Jadhav are reflected in para 5 whereas the injuries described by (pw8) Dr. Ashruba Jadhav are narrated in para 16 of the judgment. Our endeavour is to show our concern that in such matters of serious nature the Medical Officer ought to have minutely checked up the injuries sustained by the deceased and thereafter issued appropriate certificate. We are, therefore, inclined to observe that the Director of Public Health, Government of Maharashtra must bring this to the notice of the concerned Medical Officer if he is still in Government service. 28. We have noticed another disturbing feature that while conducting the case the learned Additional Public Prosecutor failed to ask (pw9) Dr. Pandurang Jadhav as to whether the injuries suffered by Vandana were sufficient inthe ordinary course of nature to cause her death. The principle behind elucidating opinion of the Medical Officer regarding ascertaining sufficiency of injuries for causing death is well settled and well known, therefore, the prosecution machinery - the State shall also take abundant precaution in conducting the trial in accordance with the settled norms, procedure and principles enunciated in law. We would like to draw attention of the Principal Secretary Law and Judiciary Government of Maharashtra to the observations made by us as above. 29. In the result, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2004 on 6.2.2006 is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.