PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.:- Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th November. 2003 passed by the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1991, thereby convicting the appellant/accused to suffer RI for life with fine for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal; the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused. 2. The brief story of the prosecution can be unfolded as follows:- One Khemchand Parmanand Lalwani was running grocery shop along with his son namely Rajkumar under the name and style "Vasant Shah Grocery Shop" at village Ramgad. Rajkumar son of Khemchand who was looking after the business of the said grocery shop, used to reside in a room near grocery shop. The appellant/accused Rashid was a servant in the said shop along with the other servants Vijay Dewaji Barsagade, Sudhakar Devaji Bharavi and Amrapal Vishwanath Humne. On the date of incident i.e, 25,05,1991 at about 04:00 p,m, to 04:30 p.m., the appellant came to the shop of Khemchand, At the relevant time when Rajkumar was sitting on the counter, the appellant demanded Rs,15/- from Rajkumar and Rajkumar refused to give the amount. Rashid went away from the spot. It is further the case of the prosecution that in the night at about 09:00 to 09:30. when Rajkumar was taking meals with Amrapal (PW-I). the appellant entered the room, having a knife m his hand and delivered successive blows to Rajkumar. Rajkumar cried loudly seeking help by saying. "bachao. bachao", Amrapal (PW1) immediately went to call Dr. Wan are and some other persons namely Surpam Guruji and Yelke Wireman, These above referred persons immediately rushed to the spot. On receiving the information. police also rushed to the spot. As Rajkumar had received serious injuries. he was firstly taken to Kurkheda Hospital and thereafter he was taken to Gadchiroli Hospital. Initially, the offence was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code and subsequently as Rajkumar succumbed to the injuries on 26,05,1991 at Gadchiroli Hospital. the offence was thereafter converted into an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused, The police machinery after receiving the information was set in motion. The body was referred for autopsy and Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Narayan Wanjari (PW-9) issued the postmortem report which is at Exh.30. The statements of witnesses were recorded. the offence was thereafter converted into an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused, The police machinery after receiving the information was set in motion. The body was referred for autopsy and Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Narayan Wanjari (PW-9) issued the postmortem report which is at Exh.30. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Various panchanamas namely, spot of occurrence, seizure of the clothes, recovery of the weapon were drawn in presence of panchas. The articles were referred for chemical analysis and the CA reports (Exhs.47, 48 and 49) were received by the investigating agency. On completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. On appreciation of the evidence, the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the offence against the appellant and ultimately by the judgment and order the appellant (original accused) was convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment along with the fine. 4. Shri. R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside on more than one grounds. He submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution on account of the occurrence are neither trustworthy nor reliable. He further submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and as such it is not possible to place reliance on their version. He further submitted that the motive as alleged by the prosecution for commission of the offence, i.e. refusal of amount is also a very weak piece of evidence. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is improbable to accept that only on the ground of refusal of amount of Rs.15/-, the appellant would take such a drastic step. He further submitted that though the prosecution has tried to show that the deceased made oral dying declaration in presence of some of the witnesses namely, Khemchand (PW-3), Maroti Bhanuji Surpam (PW-6) and Somnath Raghunath Thalal (PW-7). these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On the contrary, the defence was successful in bringing the omissions regarding of oral dying declaration in the testimony of these witnesses and as such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On the contrary, the defence was successful in bringing the omissions regarding of oral dying declaration in the testimony of these witnesses and as such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the medical evidence in the form of postmortem report which is issued by Dr. Narayan Wanjari (PW-9) cannot be accepted for the reason that Dr. Wanjari, in his substantive evidence, has not stated before the Court that the injuries caused to deceased Rajkumar were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. To support his submissions. he has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Bapuna Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 350), 5. Per contra, Shri. S. S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. submitted that the prosecution has brought cogent and reliable evidence in the form of the eye-witness, medical evidence and recovery of weapon at the instance of the appellant. He further submitted that the evidence brought by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant and as such there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have gone through the record. 7. The prosecution, to show that the deceased Rajkumar died homicidal death, has relied on the following evidence:- The Inquest Report (Exh.19) and the Postmortem Report (Exh.30). The inquest report which was proved by Khemchand Lalwani (PW -3) as well as Dattatraya Bhalerao (PW-12), Investigating Officer, shows that there was a mark of injury on the back side (dorsal) arm portion of the left hand of the deceased as well there were two Injuries which were visible on the front left side thigh portion which were at the distance of two inches from each other. There was also a mark on left side below abdomen and the intestines thereat were protruded. 8. The post-mortem report which is proved by Dr. Narayan Wanjari (PW-9), in his substantive evidence before the Court, has stated about the injuries, namely. (i) incised wound on left thigh. There was also a mark on left side below abdomen and the intestines thereat were protruded. 8. The post-mortem report which is proved by Dr. Narayan Wanjari (PW-9), in his substantive evidence before the Court, has stated about the injuries, namely. (i) incised wound on left thigh. anteriorally upper 3rd, size 1 1/2 inch x half inch skin deep obliqually placed; (ii) incised would on left thigh anteriorally, 2 inch below wound No.1, size 1 x 1/2 inch skin obliqually placed; and (iii) stab injury over lower abdomen left side, 2 inch x 1 inch x 6 inch, exposing small intenstine, there was collected bleeding, there was injury to the internal iliac artery of left side and injury to the small intestine. Dr. Wanjari further stated that the injury No.3 i.e. stab injury was of grave nature. He has further stated that the injuries noticed by him in column No.l7 in postmortem report (Exh.30) could be caused by dagger (Article-A) which was shown to him. Nothing was brought by the defence to shake the version of this witness. This witness PW-9 stood firm throughout his cross-examination. In view of the above referred evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased Rajkumar died homicidal death. 9. The next and important question before us is now that whether the prosecution was successful to show that the appellant is the author of the said crime. 10. The prosecution for this purpose has relied on the evidence of Amrapal (PW-l). Bhagwant (PW-5), Maroti (PW-6) and Somnath (PW-7). Insofar as Amrapal (PW-l) who has given a statement (Exh.14). on which FIR (Exh.15) came to be lodged, is concerned, his testimony shows that though he has given a detailed account of the backdrop of the incident and the motive, this witness has turned hostile on the actual occurrence. Shri. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant. who has strongly attacked PW-l on the ground that this witness has resiled in respect of the actual incident. We find considerable merit in the submission of Shri. Daga. but. we arc not in agreement with Shri. Daga that there is no material brought by the prosecution to show the complicity of the appellant in the incident in question. Even though Amrapal (PW-l) has turned hostile. there is other important witness who gives the detailed account of the Incident and i.e. PW-5 Dr. Wanare. but. we arc not in agreement with Shri. Daga that there is no material brought by the prosecution to show the complicity of the appellant in the incident in question. Even though Amrapal (PW-l) has turned hostile. there is other important witness who gives the detailed account of the Incident and i.e. PW-5 Dr. Wanare. In his substantive evidence, PW-5 has stated that on receiving the information. he had immediately rushed to the room where deceased Rajkumar was residing and he found the injuries on stomach of Rajkumar. He further stated that Rajkumar told him that the appellant came to demand the money and as he refused. the appellant assaulted him. Though the witness was put to a searching cross-examination, this witness was not at all shaken. Shri. Daga tried to submit that there is an omission brought by the defence about the oral dying declaration to this witness but the perusal of record shows that the omission was only in respect of the word "slowly". The perusal of record clearly shows that this witness has denied the suggestion of the defence that there was no talk between him and Rajkumar. PW-5 also denied the suggestion that when he entered the room. Rajkumar was unconscious and was not in a condition to talk. We find that the version of this witness is truthful and there is no reason to disbelieve him. 11. As the material omissions were brought on record by the defence in the cross-examination of Maroti (PW-6) and Somnath (PW-7) in respect of the incident, their evidence does not inspire confidence. 12. Insofar as the other important evidence i.e. the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant and the CA report are concerned, the weapon dagger which was discovered at the instance of the appellant from the spot near the nullah and the same was concealed and was dug out beneath the sand. It was found that there were dry blood stains on the blade of the knife. The dagger (knife) was referred for chemical analysis and the report of CA shows that the human blood was found on the dagger and the blood group "B" was detected by the Chemical Analyser. The recovery of the weapon at the instance of appellant is one of the circumstances in favour of the prosecution. The dagger (knife) was referred for chemical analysis and the report of CA shows that the human blood was found on the dagger and the blood group "B" was detected by the Chemical Analyser. The recovery of the weapon at the instance of appellant is one of the circumstances in favour of the prosecution. The appellant was unable to offer any explanation to this material piece of evidence. 13. Shri. Daga. the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the version of the witnesses namely Khemchand (PW-3). Maroti (PW-6) and Somnath (PW-7) about oral dying declaration cannot be accepted as Rajkurnar was unconscious when these witnesses attended him. To support his submissions, Shri. Daga placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Gokul Keval Malich Vs. State of Maharashtra (reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 665). We arc not convinced by the said submissions for the reason that the facts of the case referred in the said Judgment differ from the facts of the case at hand. In this case, though the version of Maroti (PW-6) and Somnath (PW-7) is not acceptable, the version of Dr. Bhagwant Wan are (PW-5) is truthful and reliable. The version of PW -5 also shows that the deceased Rajkumar made a disclosure before PW-5 about the incident and the attack committed by the appellant. As we have held that there is no reason to disbelieve PW-5, in our opinion, the submissions of Shri. Daga do not advance the case of the accused. 14. Shri. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the fact that Dr. Narayan Wanjari (PW-9), in his substantive evidence, has not stated that the injuries caused to Rajkumar were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and In absence of such medical opinion, the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. Shri. Daga placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Bapuna Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra). We are not In agreement of submissions of Shri. Daga for the reason that the Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others (reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516). In clear terms has observed as follows: " ... mere omission to put the question is not enough for the Court to reach wrong conclusion. Mir Mohammad Omar and others (reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516). In clear terms has observed as follows: " ... mere omission to put the question is not enough for the Court to reach wrong conclusion. Though not an expert as PW30 the Sessions Judge himself would have been an experienced Judicial officer. Looking at the injuries he himself could have deduced whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No sensible man with some idea regarding the features of homicidal cases would come to a different conclusion from the injuries indicated above, the details of which have been stated by the doctor (PW-30) in his evidence. " The Apex Court in the case of Brij Bhukan Vs. State of U.P. (reported in AIR 1957 SC 474 ) has held that although the medical evidence did not say that anyone of the injuries on the body of the deceased was sufficient to cause death it was open to Court to look into the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and infer from them that the assailant intended to cause death of the deceased. 15. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred judgments, we are unable to accept the submission of Shri. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, me injuries which the accused caused to the dcceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. 16. Shri. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution would show that there was no intention of the appellant to commit murder of Rajkumar and as Rajkumar refused to pay the amount, in the heat of passion, the appellant assaulted Rajkumar and as such the offence would not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but at the most it would fall under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, We are unable to accept the submission of Shri, Daga for the reason that it emerges from the evidence that initially the appellant attended the shop of deceased Rajkumar in the evening at 04:00 to 04:30 p.m. and thereafter at 09:00 to 09:30 p.m., the appellant again came to the residence of deceased Rajkumar with knife and assaulted Rajkumar. This clearly shows that it was not the act of the appellant in heat of passion but an act which was the result of pre-planned attack. Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no error is committed by the learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence and convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.