Judgment H.B. Antani, J.—This appeal preferred under Section 374[2] of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“Code” for short] is directed against the judgment dated 13.8.2003 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years and further convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. However, no separate order of sentence was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:— 3. As per the prosecution case, the incident took place on 24.10.2002 at about 12.30 p.m. in the afternoon at Malvan village, district:Amreli. The appellant who was armed with knife assaulted Vasantbhai, son of the complainant-Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai Dabhi when he was standing near the shop of Hansrajbhai. The appellant caused injuries to deceased Vasantbhai on the left hand side of his back as well as on the left hand. A complaint was given by Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai Dabhi to Police Sub Inspector, Amreli Taluka on 24.10.2002. After recording the complaint as per the say of Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai, a report was prepared under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same was forwarded to the superior officer. Investigation was entrusted to Bhanulal Bhojabhai Parmar who was working as Police Sub Inspector at Amreli. He visited the place of incident and prepared panchnama of the place of the incident. Inquest panchnama was prepared on 24.10.2002 in presence of panch witnesses. After preparing inquest panchnama, dead body of deceased Vasant was sent for post-mortem and opinion was sought about the cause of death of the deceased. Panchnama with regard to the samples which were obtained from the scene of offence was prepared in presence of panch witnesses. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai, Chandubhai Gordhanbhai, Shantaben etc. Muddamal which was recovered was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”for short] for the purpose of detailed analysis. Appellant was detained and clothes which were put on by him a the time of the incident were seized and sent to the FSL for the purpose of analysis. Panchnama with regard to recovery of weapon used in the commission of offence was prepared in presence of panch witnesses. Appellant was detained and clothes which were put on by him a the time of the incident were seized and sent to the FSL for the purpose of analysis. Panchnama with regard to recovery of weapon used in the commission of offence was prepared in presence of panch witnesses. On receipt of post-mortem report, report of FSL etc, the appellant was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amreli and as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court in view of the provisions contained in Section 209 of the Code. Learned Sessions Court framed Charge vide Exh.1 and the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him. The matter was, therefore, set down for full-fledged trial before the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses:— P.W. Name of the prosecution witness Exh. 1 Dr. Haresh Dalsukhbhai Yadav 8 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai 12 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai 14 4 Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai 16 5 Jagdishbhai Ramjibhai 18 6 Himanshu Shantilal Desa 21 7 Bhikhubhai Somabhai 24 8 Anandbhai Devrajbhai 26 9 Jagabhai Bhayabhai 28 10 Bhanulal Bhojabhai Parmar 30 11 Emnaben Mohmadbhai 36 4. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the following documentary evidence:— Sr.No. Nature of documentary evidence Exh. 1 Postmortem Note carried out on the dead body of deceased Vasantbhai 10 2 Inquest panchnama 13 3 Complaint given by Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai 17 4 Panchnama of place of offence 19 5 Discovery panchnama of weapon shown by the accused 25 6 Arrest panchnama under which blood stained clothes of the accused were seized. 27 7 Panchnama of seizure of clothes from the dead body of the deceased 29 8 Receipt issued by FSL regarding receipt of muddamal in sealed condition for analysis. 31 9 Forwarding letter of Chemical Analyzer regarding analysis report. 32 10 Analysis report of Serology Department, given by Chemical Analyzer. 33 11 Report made by P.S.O., Amreli 34 12 Yadi sent by Medical Officer, Amreli to P.I. Amreli City. 35 13 Report made by P.S.O. Amreli to P.S.I., Amreli. 37 5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code and the appellant completely denied his involvement in the commission of offence and stated that on the date of the incident, he was not present at village Malvan. 37 5. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge recorded further statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code and the appellant completely denied his involvement in the commission of offence and stated that on the date of the incident, he was not present at village Malvan. Learned Sessions Judge considered the oral depositions and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and held that the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in order to prove inextricable involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Deposition adduced by P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai vide Exh.12 and P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai vide Exh.14 makes it abundantly clear that on the date of the incident, the appellant who was armed with knife, gave knife blows to deceased Vasant and as a result of which, Vasant became unconscious and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai reiterated in his deposition adduced vide Exh.14 as to how deceased Vasant was assaulted by the appellant with knife. P.W. 1 Dr. Haresh Dalsukhbhai Yadav who conducted post-mortem has been examined vide Exh.8. He has deposed in his testimony about internal as well as external injuries sustained by the deceased. He has given death certificate to the deceased. In the post-mortem report, he has mentioned about the cause of the death as shock due to severe haemorrahage, secondary to injury over the left lung and heart. Thus, the prosecution, on the strength of the oral depositions adduced by two eye-witnesses and the doctor who gave death certificate and carried out post-mortem, established the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the depositions adduced by the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the panchnama of the place of incident vide Exh.19, panchnama of seizure of clothes put on by the deceased vide Exh.29, inquest panchnama vide Exh.13 etc. and thus, the prosecution has established the entire link connecting the appellant in the commission of offence. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence on the record of the case held that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and convicted the appellant for life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC and fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years. 25,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years. However, learned Sessions Judge did not impose separate sentence under Section 135 of B.P. Act. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Vivek N. Mapara, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in order to bring home the guilt against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The learned Advocate submitted that on bare perusal of the depositions adduced by two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, Exh.12 and P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai, Exh.14, it becomes clear that their depositions do not inspire confidence of the Court so as to convict the appellant with commission of offence. Learned Advocate submitted that the depositions adduced by both these witnesses bristle with contradictions and there are many lacunae in the depositions adduced by the eye witnesses; Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai-P.W. 2 and Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai-P.W. 3 and therefore, benefit of the same requires to be given to the appellant. Learned Advocate submitted that P.W. 1-Dr. Haresh Yadav who has been examined vide Exh.8, carried out the post-mortem of deceased Vasant and he narrated the injuries sustained by the deceased in the detailed post-mortem report submitted by him. P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, in his deposition Exh. 12 has stated that he had seen the incident from about 60 feet from the shop of Hansraj when the appellant assaulted Vasant with knife on the left side of his body and on the left hand. The appellant inflicted three to four knife blows to deceased Vasantbhai. Learned Advocate submitted that P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai had seen the incident from about 60 to 70 feet and, therefore, he would not be in a position to say in precise manner as to how many blows were given by the appellant to deceased Vasant. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had seen the appellant giving knife blows to deceased Vasant, but in what manner blows were given by the appellant to deceased Vasant was not seen by him. Thereafter, deceased Vasant entered the house of Hansrajbhai. He has further deposed in his cross-examination that all throughout when the deceased was taken to the hospital and complaint was given by Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai Dabhi, father of Vasant, he was present at the hospital. Thereafter, deceased Vasant entered the house of Hansrajbhai. He has further deposed in his cross-examination that all throughout when the deceased was taken to the hospital and complaint was given by Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai Dabhi, father of Vasant, he was present at the hospital. Considering the deposition given by P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, it becomes clear that P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai had not precisely seen the incident in question. He has also not seen as to how many blows were inflicted by the appellant to the deceased and in what manner assault was committed by the appellant on deceased Vasant and, therefore, the deposition adduced by P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai is required to be discarded. P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai has been examined vide Exh.14. In his deposition, he has stated that the incident took place near the shop of Hansraj. The deceased was given three to four blows by the appellant with knife. As per the deposition given this witness, one blow was given by the appellant to the deceased in chest, one blow was given on the back side of his body and one blow was given on the left hand. Thereafter, he tried to save his brother and the appellant who had given knife blows fled from the scene of offence. Learned Advocate submitted that P.W. 3 Arvindbhai is also not clear about the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased when the knife blows were inflicted by the appellant and, therefore, the deposition adduced by P.W. 3 Arvindbhai cannot be said to be reliable or trustworthy. Learned Advocate submitted that even necessary corroboration to the prosecution story about the knife blows given by the appellant to the deceased is not established in cogent and conclusive manner. Complaint was given by P.W. 4 Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai, but the version given by him in the complaint is not substantiated in the deposition adduced by this witness vide Exh.16. This witness had not seen the incident. He had gone to the shop of Hansraj after the assault was committed by the appellant on deceased Vasant and, therefore, the deposition given by this witness cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has examined Jagdishbhai Ramjibhai, P.W. 5 vide Exh. 18. He is panch witness of scene of offence panchnama produced vide Exh.19. He had gone to the shop of Hansraj after the assault was committed by the appellant on deceased Vasant and, therefore, the deposition given by this witness cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has examined Jagdishbhai Ramjibhai, P.W. 5 vide Exh. 18. He is panch witness of scene of offence panchnama produced vide Exh.19. Himanshu Shantilal Desai, P.W. 6 is examined vide Exh.21, whereas Bhikhubhai Somabhai P.W. 7 is examined vide Exh.24 who is panch witness of discovery panchnama of muddamal article. Anandbhai Devrajbhai P.W. 8 is examined vide Exh.26 as panch witness to prove the seizure of clothes put on by the appellant. Jagabhai Bhayabhai, P.W. 9 is examined vide Exh. 28. He was called as panch witness in connection with recovery of clothes from the dead body of deceased Vasant. Investigating Officer Bhanulal Bhojabhai Parmar has been examined as P.W. 10 vide Exh.30. Learned Advocate submitted that as the prosecution has not established the entire link connecting the appellant in the commission of offence, other documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident Exh.19, inquest panchnama vide Exh.13, panchnama of seizure of clothes put on by the appellant Exh.27, complaint given by Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai Exh.17, FSL report Exh. 11 and post-mortem report Exh.10 are of no help to the prosecution case. Learned Advocate submitted that on the strength of oral depositions as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has not proved the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, it is a fit case, wherein, the appellant is required to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. In the alternative, learned Advocate submitted that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the prosecution has established the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence, then, considering the mitigating circumstances such as age of the appellant and the fact that he has committed the offence for the first time etc., be considered and lesser punishment be imposed on the appellant. 7. Learned APP Ms. Chetna M. Shah appearing for the respondent State submitted that the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in order to prove involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. 7. Learned APP Ms. Chetna M. Shah appearing for the respondent State submitted that the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in order to prove involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, Exh.12 and P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai, Exh.14 have indicated as to in what manner the deceased was assaulted by the appellant and how knife blows were given by the appellant on the deceased on the vital part of his body. Complaint was given by Gordhanbhai, father of the deceased vide Exh.17 and he has given deposition vide Exh.16 in support of the version given by him in the complaint. Thus, necessary corroboration is also forthcoming to the prosecution story about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Dr. Haresh Yadav, P.W. 1 has been examined vide Exh.8. He had carried out post-mortem on deceased Vasant. In Col. No. 23, he has narrated the cause of death of the deceased. He has deposed in his testimony that injuries which were caused to deceased Vasant were sufficient to cause death in ordinary circumstances. Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has also adduced documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident vide Exh.19, panchnama of clothes put on by the appellant vide Exh.27, inquest panchnama vide Exh.13, complaint given by Gordhanbhai vide Exh.17, FSL report vide Exh.33 and post-mortem report vide Exh.10 in the present case. Documentary evidence provides necessary corroboration to the prosecution case indicating the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. Learned APP submitted that the appellant committed ghastly murder of deceased Vasant and gave deadly blows on the vital parts of his body. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire gamut of oral depositions and documentary evidence and on the strength of the evidence on record of the case, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P.Act and therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be upheld and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Vivek Mapara, appearing for the appellant and Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned APP representing the State at length and in great detail. 8. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Vivek Mapara, appearing for the appellant and Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned APP representing the State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the reasonings given by the learned Judge for convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of B.P. Act. We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the entire evidence on the record of the case. 9. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the incident in question took place on 24.10.2002 at village Malvan in Amreli taluka and district. The appellant, who was armed with knife had an altercation with deceased Vasant near the shop of Hansraj and as he got infuriated, he gave fatal blows to deceased Vasant on the left hand side of his back and on the left hand. Complaint was given by Gordhanbhai to the PSI, Amreli Taluka on 24.10.2002, wherein, he has narrated as to how his son Vasant was assaulted by the appellant with knife and deadly blows were given on the vital parts of his body. He has also narrated in the complaint that the appellant used to pass through the house of the complainant and used to stare at his daughter and other lady members of his family in lecherous manner. As the appellant was berated by Vasant, he got infuriated and gave fatal blows with knife to deceased Vasant. Complaint given by Gordhanbhai P.W. 4 is supported by two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, Exh.12 and P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai, Exh.14. Both the witnesses had seen the incident and they have deposed in their testimony as to in what manner the assault was committed by the appellant on the deceased on vital part of his body. The version given by two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, Exh.12 and P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai, Exh.14 in their examination-in-chief could not be dislodged in the cross-examination. P.W. 4, complainant Gordhanbhai Arjanbhai is examined vide Exh.16. He has reiterated in his deposition as to how the assault was committed on his son Vasant by the appellant near the shop of Hansraj. Deposition adduced by this witness is corroborated by the deposition adduced by Dr. Haresh Yadav, P.W. 1 vide Exh.8. He had carried out autopsy on the dead body of deceased Vasant. He has reiterated in his deposition as to how the assault was committed on his son Vasant by the appellant near the shop of Hansraj. Deposition adduced by this witness is corroborated by the deposition adduced by Dr. Haresh Yadav, P.W. 1 vide Exh.8. He had carried out autopsy on the dead body of deceased Vasant. In his testimony, he has deposed about the internal and external injuries sustained by the deceased as well as cause of death in Col.23 of post-mortem report submitted by him. The cause of the death, as per his report was due to shock and severe haemorrhage secondary to the injury over the left lung and heart. The prosecution has examined panch witnesses as well as Investigating Officer who carried out the investigation. The Investigating Officer P.W. 10 Bhanulal Bhojabhai has deposed as to in what manner investigation was carried out. On perusal of the deposition adduced by this witness, it becomes clear that the investigation was carried out in most scrupulous manner. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence such as panchnama of place of incident vide Exh.19, inquest panchnama vide Exh.13, post-mortem report vide Exh.10, complaint given by Gordhanbhai vide Exh.17, panchnama of recovery of knife which was shown by the appellant vide Exh.25, panchnama of recovery of clothes put on by the appellant vide Exh.27 and report of FSL vide Exh.33 etc. to the present case. Documentary evidence provides necessary corroboration to the prosecution story. Panchnama of the place of incident Exh. 19 was prepared in presence of panch witnesses and meticulous care was taken while preparing the said panchnama. Investigating Officer has prepared panchnma of the seizure of clothes put on by the appellant Exh. 27 and the report submitted by Dr. Haresh Yadav of the post-mortem Exh. 10 of deceased Vasant as well as detailed FSL analysis report Exh. 33 provide further corroboration to the prosecution story about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime. 10. It has been strenuously argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the depositions adduced by two eye-witnesses bristle with contradictions and therefore, the prosecution has not established the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. 33 provide further corroboration to the prosecution story about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of crime. 10. It has been strenuously argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the depositions adduced by two eye-witnesses bristle with contradictions and therefore, the prosecution has not established the involvement of the appellant in the commission of offence. However, we have minutely observed the version given by two eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Vaghjibhai Bhavanbhai, Exh.12 and P.W. 3 Arvindbhai Gordhanbhai, Exh.14 in the present case and we are satisfied that their depositions are not inconsistent and they have narrated the involvement of appellant in the commission of offence which is not dislodged by the defence side in the cross-examination. It is also contended by the learned Advocate that the eye-witnesses are related to the deceased and, therefore, they are interested witnesses and their depositions require to be discarded. However, in view of the catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as by our High Court, if deposition adduced by a relative is trustworthy and reliable and if it inspires confidence of the Court, then, such deposition cannot be discarded. Thus, we do not see any merit in this submission canvassed by the learned Advocate for the appellant. It is also urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the appellant has committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC, then, mitigating circumstances such as age of the appellant and the fact that he has committed the offence for the first time, need to be considered and some lesser punishment be imposed on the appellant. There is no merit in the submission canvassed by the learned advocate, because, the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC and as his case would not fall in any of the exceptions carved out under Section 300 of IPC, lesser punishment under Section 304 Part I or II cannot be imposed on the appellant. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Judgment dated 13.8.2003 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2003 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years and convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, is hereby confirmed. Muddamal shall be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.