JUDGMENT : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.:- The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction inflicted upon the appellant (original accused no.1) Ganesh Baban Solankar for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default condition to suffer R.I. for three months and conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default condition to suffer R.I. for three months, by the judgment and order rendered by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No.71 of 2006 on 28.9.2007. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is summarised as under :- It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant P.W.2 Popat Solankar filed the complaint before Paranda police station on 13.5.2006 at about 16.20 hours, contending that he resides at Rajput Lane, Paranda along with his wife, namely Manda and two sons, namely Rahul and Rupesh and one daughter and also stating that he has four brothers, out of them elder brother Baban died about 4 years back and his another brother, namely Shrirang was serving in Irrigation Department and his younger brother, namely Nagnath resides at Vishrantwadi, Pune and used to do labour work for his livelihood. The complainant also contends that he used to ply truck to earn livelihood for himself and his family. 3. The said complaint also recites that the marriage of his niece, namely Reshma i.e. daughter of his brother, namely Shrirang was fixed on 14.5.2006 at Wakadi and marriage invitation cards were also printed there for and relatives were gathered for the said function. However, it is alleged that since the name of wife of deceased Baban, namely Yamunabai was not printed in the marriage invitation card, her two sons, namely Ganesh i.e. appellant (original accused no.1) and Pintu alias Somnath (original accused no-4) made grievance in that respect and also quarreled with the complainant and deceased Nagnath on that count. However, all the relatives pacified them and thereafter said matter was settled. 4. However, all the relatives pacified them and thereafter said matter was settled. 4. The said complaint further reveals that on 12.5.2006 at about 20.00 hours the complainant had returned from the work place to home and was sitting on the platform in front of his house along with deceased, his wife and his brother deceased Nagnath and his wife Chandrakala. At this juncture, the appellant herein started abusing on the count that his mothers name, viz. Yamunabai was not printed in the marriage invitation card and Pintu alias Somnath i.e. original accused no. 4 and his mother Yamnuabai also abused and threatened to assault them. The complainant tried to pacify them, but the appellant herein became wild and assaulted him by wooden log. Thereupon deceased Nagnath and his wife intervened in the said quanel. At that time, Manisha (original accused No.3) i.e. sister of Ganesh i.e. original accused no.1 assaulted Chandrakala; whereas Pintu alias Somnath i.e. original accused no 4 abused and assaulted deceased Nagnath. However, nearby persons viz. Rajabhau Kanade and Sanjay Kanade intervened and relieved the said quarrel, but the appellant herein-original accused no 4 Pintu alias Somnath as well as Yamunabai i.e. original accused no.2 gave threats to the complainant and his brothers to kill them and left the said place. 5. It was noticed that during the said quarrel the marriage string of Chandra kala was broken and beads thereof were fallen on the ground and the complainant and deceased brother Nagnath and Sanjay Kanade were searching the said beads. It is alleged that suddenly at this juncture, the appellant herein arrived there from Momin lane, who was armed with knife and shouted loudly that he would kill the complainant and Nagnath and thereafter gave a blow of knife into the stomach of Nagnath and thereupon Nagnath fell down. At this juncture, Pintu alias Somnath-original accused no.4 also assaulted the complainant by hands; whereas Yamunabai i.e. original accused no.2 loudly gave abuses to complainant and Nagnath and instigated the said assailants to kill the complainant and Nagnath. On hearing the voice ofNagnath, Sanjay Kanade, Bhima Sarak, Narayan Jedhe and others assembled there and intervened and relieved the said quarrel. At this juncture, Pintu alias Somnath-original accused no.4 also assaulted the complainant by hands; whereas Yamunabai i.e. original accused no.2 loudly gave abuses to complainant and Nagnath and instigated the said assailants to kill the complainant and Nagnath. On hearing the voice ofNagnath, Sanjay Kanade, Bhima Sarak, Narayan Jedhe and others assembled there and intervened and relieved the said quarrel. At this juncture, complainant Popat tried to catch hold of knife in the hands of appellant Ganesh, but Ganesh gave a blow of said knife forcibly into the back of the complainant and the complainant sustained bleeding injury. The complainant further states that Nagnath was injured severely and had become unconscious, and therefore, he was given water, and when all the persons assembled there, they tried to remove him to the hospital and the assailants tried to run away, but at this stage, the complainant snatched the knife from the hands of the appellant. Thereafter, it is stated that Nagnath was taken to the Government Hospital for medical treatment and thereafter was further shifted to Jagdalemama hospital, Barshi for better medical treatment. 6. It is also the case of prosecution that, P.W.9 Ekabal Syed, who was working as P.S.I. At Omerga police station, District Osmanabad at the relevant time, recorded M.L.C. No.82 of 2006 on 12.5.2006 at about 23.00 hours and the said M.L.C. was registered in Sessions Diary and inquiry was handed over to Head Constable Thorat. Thereafter P.W.9 PSI Ekabal Syed visited Jagdalemama Hospital, Barshi and made inquiry with doctor, who stated that the patient was in a position to give the statement, since he was admitted in I.C.U. P.W.9 PSI Syed made inquiry with the relatives and registered the complaint (Exhibit 38) of P.W.2 Complainant Popat on 13.5.2006 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and made the necessary station diary entry to that effect. Moreover, complainant P.W.2 Popat handed over the knife which was snatched from the hands of appellant Ganesh and same was seized under panchanama (Exhibit 49). Thereafter P.W.9 PSI Syed visited the spot of incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit 46), as well as went to Jagdalemama hospital, Barshi and seized the clothes of the victim under panchanama (Exhibit 50). 7. Thereafter P.W.9 PSI Syed visited the spot of incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit 46), as well as went to Jagdalemama hospital, Barshi and seized the clothes of the victim under panchanama (Exhibit 50). 7. It is further the case of the prosecution that search of the appellant/accused was conducted and P.W.9 PSI Syed arrested Yamunabai (original accused no.2) and Manisha (original accused no.3) on 13.5.2006; as well as P.W.9 PSI Syed recorded statements of witnesses including Sanjay Kanade, and Chandrakala Solankar on the said date. He also arrested Pintu alias Somnath-original accused no.4 on 17.5.2006, as well as arrested appellant herein, namely Ganesh on 21.5.2006. P.W.9 PSI Ekabal Syed also visited the hospital during the period from 13.5.2006 to 18.5.2006 to record the statements of injured Nagnath, but he was not in a position to give the statement" and ultimately injured Nagnath expired in the said hospital on 18.5.2006. Since injured Nagnath died on 18.5.2006. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was incorporated in the first information report and dead body was sent for post-mortem purpose. He also collected blood sample of injured during the said period for the investigation purpose. 8. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 19.5.2006, P.W.9 PSI Syed received the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 44) of the deceased and also procured the provisional death certificate of the victim. During the course of investigation, he collected the marriage card of Reshma (Exhibit 39) from the complainant, as well as collected the blood sample of the complainant. Appellant Ganesh gave memorandum statement (Exhibit 52) after his arrest to produce stick and clothes on his person and thereafter the appellant proceeded to his house and produced stick and clothes on his person and same were seized under memorandum panchanama (Exhibit 53). 9. During the course of investigation. P.W.9 PSI Syed sent the muddemal property to the Chemical Analyser's Office. Aurangabad for investigating purpose along with forwarding letter (Exhibit 64), as well as collected the injury certificates of injured (Exhibits 32 and 34) and post-mortem notes of deceased Nagnath (Exhibit 65). Thereafter, chemical analysis repol1s were collected, which are produced at Exhs.66 to 69 respectively. 10. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda and since the said case was triable by the court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, chemical analysis repol1s were collected, which are produced at Exhs.66 to 69 respectively. 10. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Paranda and since the said case was triable by the court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Paranda committed the said case to the court of Sessions, Osmanabad on 29.9.2006. Accordingly, learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad framed charge against the accused persons under Sections 302,324,323,504,506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Exhibit 10 and accused nos. 1 to 4 faced the trial under the said charges. 11. To substantiate the said charges against the accused persons, prosecution examined, in as much as 9 witnesses, as mentioned below:- PW-1 Or. Sanjay Ashok WalKe, who examined victim Nagnath. PW-2 Popat Solankar - complainant and eye-witness. PW-3 Sanjay Kanade - driver and eye-witness. PW-4 Chandrakala Solankar - wife of victim and eye-witness. PW-5 Eknath Jadhav - Panch to spot panchanama. PW-6 Sudam Kavathe - Panch for seizure of knife produced by complainant and seizure panchanama of clothes of injuries. PW-7 Bhima Sarak - Panch for memorandum panchanama regarding recovery/discovery of clothes of appellant. PW-8 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad, Medical Officer and Post-mortem doctor. PW-9 PSI Ekabal Syed - Investigating Officer. 12. The defence of the accused persons was of total denial and they stated that they are not concerned with the alleged offences and pleaded ignorance in that respect. The accused persons also examined one defence witness namely Dr. Manoj Lokhande at Exhibit 72, who proved case papers of Jagdalemama hospital of deceased Nagnath (Exhibit-74). 13. After assessment of the evidence on record, learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge concluded the trial on 28.9.2007 and thereby acquitted the accused nos.2 to 4 from the charges levelled against them as well as acquitted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 323. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the appellant herein (original accused no.1) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as afore said. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 28.9.2007, the appellant (original accused no.1) has preferred the present appeal requesting to quash and set aside the said conviction and sentence. 14. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 28.9.2007, the appellant (original accused no.1) has preferred the present appeal requesting to quash and set aside the said conviction and sentence. 14. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. we feel it necessary to scrutinise the material adduced and produced by the prosecution and defence, and accordingly coming to the deposition of P.W.2 Popat Solankar, who is the complainant and brother of victim namely Nagnath stated that he was having three brothers namely deceased Nagnath, Shrirang and Baban. but Baban died about 4 to 5 years back and appellant Ganesh (original accused No.1) is son of deceased Baban and Yamunabai (original accused No.2) is the wife of deceased Baban and Manisha (original accused No.3) is daughter of deceased Baban and Somnath (original accused No.4) is another son of deceased Baban. He also stated that marriage of Reshma i.e. daughter of Shrirang was to be performed on 14.5.2006 and marriage cards were printed therefor. However name of Yamunabai i.e. original accused No.2 was not printed in the said marriage invitation cards and. therefore, she instigated appellant and thereupon all the accused persons quarreled and abused P.W.2 Popat and his family on that count on 11.5.2006. P.W.2 Popat also stated that after the said incident he filed a complaint to the Paranda Police Station against all accused. However, since there was marriage in the family and due to intervention of relatives the said matter was compromised. 15. P.W.2 Pop at further stated that on 12.5.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. he and his deceased brother Nagnath and wife of P.W.2, Nanda and his brother's wife Chandrakala were sitting on the platform in front of their house and at that time all the accused came there and appellant Ganesh abused them as name of Yamunabai was not printed in the marriage card. Thereafter Chandrakala asked all the accused not to abuse but they assaulted her and during the said quarrel her Mangalsutra was damaged and broken and beads thereof were fallen on the ground. At this juncture, nearby persons namely Sanjay, Bhima Dagdu, Narayan Jedhe intervened and resolved the dispute and thereafter accused went away. Thereafter Chandrakala asked all the accused not to abuse but they assaulted her and during the said quarrel her Mangalsutra was damaged and broken and beads thereof were fallen on the ground. At this juncture, nearby persons namely Sanjay, Bhima Dagdu, Narayan Jedhe intervened and resolved the dispute and thereafter accused went away. P.W.2 Popat further stated that thereafter he was standing at the door of his house along with deceased Nagnath and Chandrakala and at that time appellant Ganesh, original accused No.4 Somnath and original accused No.2 Yamunabai again came there from the lane and appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on the stomach of Nagnath and thereby Nagnath fell on the ground. Moreover, Somnath caught-hold of complainant Popat and appellant assaulted him by knife on his back, but P.W.2 Popat removed knife from his hands and thereafter all the accused ran away. He also stated that due to the blow of knife on the stomach of Nagnath, his intestine carne out and Sanjay and others took Nagnath to hospital at Paranda. Doctors checked Nagnath and provided medical aid and doctors advised to shift him to Osmanabad Civil Hospital, but considering the long distance, he was shifted to Jagdale Mama Hospital. Barshi. However, he further stated that Nagnath expired in Jagdale Mama Hospital 'on 18.5.2006. Besides that, P.W.2 Popat also stated that he went to Police Station. Paranda on 13.5.2006 and filed the complaint which was recorded as per his version Exhibit 38 against the accused and also he handed over knife before police which was snatched from the hands of appellant and same was seized under the panchanama. He also produced the marriage 'invitation card which is marked as Exhibit 39. 16. During cross-examination, he stated that name of Baban has been printed on' the marriage card, but the word "Late" was not noted behind his name. He also stated that, accused came from Momin Galli to Rajput Galli and said Momin Lane is the only lane to reach his house. Suggestion was given to him that there were two lanes available to enter into Rajput Lane from Momin Lane, but same was denied by him and he asserted that there was only one lane available to come to his house. Suggestion was also given to him that he and Nagnath were in habit of drinking liquor but same also was denied by him. Suggestion was also given to him that he and Nagnath were in habit of drinking liquor but same also was denied by him. It was also suggested to him that due to habit of liquor deceased Nagnath quarreled with the people in the village but same was denied by him. It was further suggested to him that on 12.5.2006 electric light supply was not available in Paranda city from 5.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. due to load shedding, but same was denied by him. It was further suggested to him that some unknown persons assaulted Nagnath and ran away since there was no light, but same was also denied by him. While snatching the knife from the hands of Ganesh, he stated that he did not sustain any injury. The suggestion was also given to him that accused constructed a very good house at Paranda than the house of P.W.2, he had grudge against the accused, but same was denied by him. 17. In the cross-examination, few omissions were elicited that on 11.5.2006, accused Manisha also came to quarrel with P.W.2 Popat and family and to abuse them, and on 12.5.2006 all the accused abused them and assaulted them and when appellant assaulted deceased Nagnath, that time accused Manisha came there, but the said omissions are primarily in respect of accused Manisha who has been already acquitted and appellant herein would not be benefited by the said omissions. 18. Considering the testimony of P.W.2 Pop at, it is amply clear that P.W.2 Popat Solankar i.e. the complainant had narrated the occurrence of incident categorically which was witnessed by him and he further stated in clear terms that the appellant herein gave a blow of knife on the left side stomach of Nagnath below the left iliac fossa and thereby he fell down and although he was shifted to hospital for medical treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries on 18.5.2006 and the said deposition of P.W.2 Popat, who is the eye-witness to the occurrence of incident, has not been demolished in the cross-examination. Hence, the testimony of P.W.2 Popat, who is the eyewitness to the occurrence of incident, connects the appellant with the crime. 19. Hence, the testimony of P.W.2 Popat, who is the eyewitness to the occurrence of incident, connects the appellant with the crime. 19. That takes us to the deposition of P.W.3 Sanjay Kanade, another eye-witness to the incident, who deposed that he resides at Paranda in Rajput lane and he knows all the accused persons and deceased Nagnath and P.W.2 complainant as well. He also stated that incident occurred on 12.5.2006 and it was about 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. when he was standing in front of house of complainant at Chowk area and at that time quarrel took place in between P.W.2 complainant Popat and Nagnath and his family on the one part and the accused on the other part due to non mention of name of Yamunabai on the marriage card and he rescued the said dispute, but in the said quarrel, the marriage string of wife of Nagnath was broken and they were searching the marriage string on the ground. At this juncture, the accused Yamunabai (original accused No.2), Pintu and appellant Ganesh came there from Momin lane and appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on the left side stomach of Nagnath and thereafter intestine of Nagnath came out. He also stated that he and others tried to relieve the matter but appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on the back of complainant, but the complainant P.W.2 Popat took away the knife from the hands of Ganesh and thereafter the accused ran away from that place. He further stated that, he, Bhima Sarak and others took the injured Nagnath and Popat towards Rural Hospital, Paranda, but the doctors advised to shift him to Civil Hospital, Osmanabad. but since Nagnath was seriously injured, he was shifted to Jagdale Mama Hospital. Barshi and thereafter P.W.3 Sanjay returned to his village. 20. During cross-examination, he stated that his house is situated 100 to 150 ft. away from the house of complainant at Rajput lane. Suggestion was given to him that deceased Nagnath was addicted to liquor and there was dispute between Popat and Nagnath previously and complainant Popat and his brother's wife has lodged 3-4 cases against Nagnath against Nagnath, but same were denied by him. away from the house of complainant at Rajput lane. Suggestion was given to him that deceased Nagnath was addicted to liquor and there was dispute between Popat and Nagnath previously and complainant Popat and his brother's wife has lodged 3-4 cases against Nagnath against Nagnath, but same were denied by him. It was also suggested to him that there was partition of house property between Solankar brothers and Yamunabai constructed two rooms on the premises allotted to her portion but same were denied by him. It was also suggested to P.W.3 Sanjay that on the day of incident and at the time of incident there was no electric light due to load shedding at Paranda but same was denied by him. 21. Moreover few omissions were elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3 that. Yamunabai and Pintu came from Momin Lane. but the said omission is not in respect of appellant herein and. therefore will not affect the role of the appellant in the commission of the offence. The suggestion was also given to him that two ways were available to enter into Rajput Lane from Momin Lane but same was denied by him. It was also suggested to him that he was deposing falsely that on 12.5.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. he was standing in Chowk area of Rajput Lane and dispute and quarrel took lace between accused and appellant and appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on the stomach of Nagnath, but same was denied by him. 22. According]y, considering the testimony of P.W.3 Sanjay, it is clear that P.W.3 Sanjay was the resident of Rajput Lane. Paranda, nearby the house of complainant and he was present at the time of incident i.e. between 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on 12.5.2006 and has witnessed the occurrence of incident, and more particularly, the assault on the stomach of deceased Nagnath at the hands of assailant/appellant by way of knife and thereby causing injury to the victim and thereby coming out the intestine of victim- Nagnath and P.W.3 intervening therein as well as appellant giving a blow of knife on the back of complainant and snatching the knife by the complainant Popat from his hands, and the said version of P.W.3 has not been disturbed in the cross-examination and, therefore, it connects the appellant with the crime. Moreover, it is also material to note that besides few omissions elicited in the cross-examination, which are not material and also besides giving few suggestions given in cross-examination which were admittedly denied by the P.W.3, there is nothing damaging to the case of prosecution in the cross-examination. Moreover, narration of incident by P.W.3 is in consonance with the testimony of P.W.2 complainant Popat and both the said testimonies corroborate with each other on the very point of occurrence of incident which also connects the appellant to the crime. 23. Turning to the deposition of P.W.4 Chandrakala, wife of deceased Nagnath, who stated that she knows all the accused persons and deceased Nagnath was her husband. She stated that the incident occurred on 12.5.2006 in front of house of Popat at about 8.00 p.m. and at that time, she, her husband' Nagnath, P.W.2 Popat and his wife were sitting on the platform in front of house of P.W.2 Popat At this juncture, all the accused came there and started abusing them since name of Yamunabai was not printed on the marriage card of Reshma and, therefore, all the accused abused them. She also stated that she asked them not to quarrel and not to abuse, but all the accused caught hold and assaulted her by fist blows and during the said assault her marriage string was broken and beads fell on the ground. Hence the nearby people in the lane namely Sanjay i.e. P.W.3 and Bhima etc. intervened and rescued the quarrel and thereafter the accused persons went away. She further stated that she was searching her marriage string and beads thereof and deceased Nagnath, P.W.2 Popat and P.W.3 Sanjay were also present there and at that time, appellant Ganesh and Pintya @ Somnath (original accused No.4) came from the lane and appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on the stomach of her husband Nagnath aJ1d thereupon he shouted and fell down on the ground and his intestine came out. She further stated that at that time, accused Pintya @ Somnath caught hold P.W.2 Popat and appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on his back, but P.W.2 Popat snatched the knife from the hands of appellant Ganesh. Thereafter the appellant Ganesh and Pintya went away from that place. She further stated that at that time, accused Pintya @ Somnath caught hold P.W.2 Popat and appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on his back, but P.W.2 Popat snatched the knife from the hands of appellant Ganesh. Thereafter the appellant Ganesh and Pintya went away from that place. She further stated that P.W.3 Sanjay and Bhima took deceased Nagnath and P.W.2 Popat to Paranda Rural Hospital, and as per advice, Nagnath was removed to Jagdale Mama Hospital. Barshi. However, after the lapse of 56 days from the incident, Nagnath died. 24. During the cross-examination, she stated that since last 2 to 3 years she and Nagnath were residing at Pune for labour work. She denied that Nagnath was addicted to liquor. She also denied that complainant Popat and wife of Vithal namely Sangita had lodged 2-3 cases against Nagnath. She further denied that, in partition, open space was allotted to Yamunabai and she constructed two rooms on that open space. She stated that Police recorded her statement after the incident on 19.5.2006. Suggestion was given to her that electricity was not available at Paranda on the date of incident due to load shedding but same was denied by her. Suggestion was also given to her that she deposed falsely that all the accused quarreled with her and assaulted her and that in that scuffle her marriage string was broken and fell on the ground, but same was denied by her. It was also suggested to her that on that fateful night some unknown persons came and assaulted her husband in the night and ran away and there was load shedding during the said night but same also was denied by her. Suggestion was also given to her that she deposed falsely that appellant Ganesh gave blow of knife on the back of Popat and Popat snatched knife from his hands, but same also was denied by her. It was further suggested to her that due to construction of good house by Yamunabai in the village, they had a grudge in the minds and. therefore accused persons were involved in the present case falsely, but same was denied by her. 25. Considering the testimony of P.W.4. It was further suggested to her that due to construction of good house by Yamunabai in the village, they had a grudge in the minds and. therefore accused persons were involved in the present case falsely, but same was denied by her. 25. Considering the testimony of P.W.4. it is amply clear that P.W.4 Chandrakala was very well present at the time of occurrence of incident and she witnessed the very incident wherein appellant Ganesh gave a blow of knife on the stomach of her husband and thereupon his intestine came out and appellant gave a blow of knife on the back of complainant P.W.2 Popat and thereupon P.W.2 complainant Popat snatched knife from his hands and thereafter appellant Ganesh and Pintya ran away from the said place and the said very contention of the P.W.4 Chandrakala has not been shaken in the cross-examination. True it is that two suggestions were given to P.W.4 Chandrakala in the cross-examination, but same were denied by her. Moreover, it is also important to note that the testimonies of P.W.2 Popat. P.W.3 Sanjay and P.W.4 Chandrakala, which are the testimonies of eyewitnesses, corroborate with each other on the very aspect of occurrence of incident and the said testimonies are in consonance with each other and cumulatively connect the appellant with the crime. 26. Coming to the testimony of P.W.5 Eknath Jadhav, who is a spot panch, who stated that police personnel prepared the spot panchanama in his presence on 13.5.2006, which is produced at Exhibit 46, there is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony of preparation of spot panchanama in his presence. Moreover, prosecution produced the panchanama of seizure of knife produced by P.W.2 Popat and panchanama of seizure of clothes of injured at Exhibits 49 and 50 respectively, through Panch Witness P.W.6 Sudam Kavathe and there is nothing damaging to the case of prosecution in the cross-examination of the said witness. 27. Moreover, evidence of recovery/ discovery of clothes of appellant has been brought on record through panch witness P.W.7 Bhima Sarak and the memorandum made by the appellant is recorded at Exhibit 52 and the seizure of clothes of appellant at his instance was recorded at panchanama Exhibit 53 i.e. Article Nos.1 to 3, and there is nothing to disbelieve the said testimony of P.W.7 Bhima Sarak, who is the recovery panch. 28. 28. That takes us to medical evidence i.e. P.W.1 Dr. Sanjay Walke, who was Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Paranda at the relevant time and he stated that on 12.5.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. injured Nagnath and P.W.2 Popat were brought to Rural Hospital, Paranda by the relatives and he examined injured Nagnath and recorded M.L.C., which is produced at Exhibit 31 and injury certificate Exhibit 32. He also stated that, on examination of injured Nagnath, said injuries seem to have occurred on left iliac fossa and the weapon used for the said injury was hard object with pointed tip with edge and the age of the said injuries was within 24 hours and the nature of the said injuries was grievous and he stated that he referred the said patient for surgical management to Osmanabad Civil Hospital. He also stated that, case history was given to him as history of assault with knife. He further stated that injuries faced by the patient were of such a nature that those injuries were sufficient to cause death of the injured. He also shown Article 4 i.e. weapon/knife and he stated that, if blow of the said knife is caused, then injury shown in Exhibit 32 was probable. 29. He further stated that, on 12.5.2006 he examined P.W.2 complainant Pop at and he gave history of alleged assault and noted the CLW of size 2 x 1 x 1 cm. on the left thoracic region on back by hard object with cutting edge which was within 24 hours and the said injury was simple in nature and accordingly, issued the injury certificate which is produced at Exhibit 34 and also produced the MLC thereon at Exhibit 35. He further stated that, as per Article 4 i.e. knife before the Court, injury caused to P.W.2 Popat was possible by the blow thereof. 30. During cross-examination, he admitted that, he had not noted who brought the patient before him in Exhibit 32, but further stated that, if the patient is brought by police, then such mention is made in the injury certificate. As regards injury certificate (exhibit 32), he stated that, there is no column of MLC Number and, therefore, same is noted in Exhibit 32. He also stated that, it is not possible to measure the accurate deepness of injury due to oozing of blood or blood clot. As regards injury certificate (exhibit 32), he stated that, there is no column of MLC Number and, therefore, same is noted in Exhibit 32. He also stated that, it is not possible to measure the accurate deepness of injury due to oozing of blood or blood clot. He also admitted that the word "by knife" is not noted in Exhibit 32 and only "injury by assault" was noted. He further stated that, if having sharp point of tin or if there is sharp pointed stone and on that sharp pointed object if forcefully anybody falls on it, then injury noted in Exhibit 32 is probable. Suggestion was given to him that he prepared the false and bogus certificate at the instance of police personnel, but same was denied by him. He, further stated in the cross-examination that, injury shown in Exhibit 34 is possible if person falls at his back side on hare pointed edged object, in the context of P.W.2 complainant Popat herein. A suggestion was also given to him that he gave the said certificate (Exhibit 34) at the instance of police personnel, but he denied the same. 31. Thus, the testimony of P.W.1 Dr. Sanjay Walke categorically discloses that he examined injured Nagnath and P.W.2 complainant Popat at 9.30 p.m. on 12.5.2006 i.e. immediately and recorded the injuries sustained by them and the injury sustained by injured Nagnath was of grievous nature and the injury sustained by P.W.2 complainant Popat was of simple nature and both the said injuries were possible to be caused by Article 4, knife. Pertinently P.W.1 Dr. Sanjay Walke has stated in clear terms that injuries faced by injured Nagnath were of such a nature that those injuries were sufficient to cause death of injured. Although two admissions have been given by P.W.1 Dr. Sanjay Walke, same do not diminish the credibility of his testimony and considering the testimony of P.W.1 Dr. Sanjay Walke with wider perspective it connects the appellant with the crime. 32. That takes us to the deposition of P.W.8 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad, who has deposed that he and Dr. Bopalkar performed the autopsy on the dead body of Nagnath on 18.5.2006 at Municipal Hospital. Barshi and on external examination. noticed sutures present on left iliac fossa as well as incised wound admeasuring 6 cm. X 3 cm. X 10 cm. 32. That takes us to the deposition of P.W.8 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad, who has deposed that he and Dr. Bopalkar performed the autopsy on the dead body of Nagnath on 18.5.2006 at Municipal Hospital. Barshi and on external examination. noticed sutures present on left iliac fossa as well as incised wound admeasuring 6 cm. X 3 cm. X 10 cm. (depth) having narrow edge and all the said injuries were ante mortem injuries as well as on internal examination, noted observations as specified in Column No.19.3 of the post mortem report and the external injuries were noted at Para No.17 of the post mortem notes. He further stated that, the internal injuries and external injuries were corresponding to each other, and accordingly, post-mortem notes were prepared which were produced at Exhibit 65. He further stated that, the cause of death of Nagnath was death due to cardio respiratory arrest due to pulmonary embolism. He further stated that, the injuries detailed in clause No.17 i.e. external injuries, and internal injll1ies mentioned in clause 21 are such that those are sufficient to cause death of deceased and he further stated that such injuries are probable by blow of knife i.e. Article 4. 33. During cross-examination, he stated that, always incised wounds have narrowed at both ends and gapping in middle. It is known as having spindle shape. He further stated that, according to medical jurisprudence, when the depth of injury is more than the breadth and length of injury, then it is a stab injury. Suggestion was given to him that injury noted in para No.17 of the post-mortem notes is probable by fall on sharp tin, sharp stone, or any sharp object like iron bar etc., but same was denied by him. He further stated that pulmonary embolism means a blood clot gets plugged in the blood vessel of lung thereby causing deficiency of blood supply to the remaining part of lung which causes respiratory and cardiac failure and thereby death. Suggestion was given to him that deceased had not suffered death due to injury noted in para Nos.17 and 21 of the post-mortem notes, but same was denied by him. Suggestion was also given to him that injuries noted in para Nos.17 and 21 of post mortem notes are not probable by blow of knife Article 4, but same also was denied by him. Suggestion was also given to him that injuries noted in para Nos.17 and 21 of post mortem notes are not probable by blow of knife Article 4, but same also was denied by him. It was further suggested to him that reasoning of death given by him in post mortem notes was imaginary, but same also was denied by him. 34. As regards the cause of death. Court questions were put to the said witness that. What are the reasons of causing of death by cardio respiratory arrest? and P.W.8 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad replied that. "Whenever there is injury into the vital organ of the body, there is profuse bleeding, thereby patient goes in the hypo volumic shock. Some times the blood gets clotted and the clot starts flowing along with the blood flow. It travels through out the body till the diameter of the clot is less than the diameter of blood vessel. But when it comes to smaller blood vessel, it gets plugged. The part of the body to which the blood was supplied by that particular vessel, does not get blood supply and, therefore, the vital function of that organ gets hampered. It causes hypoxia of the brain as well as heart vessels and after effect of it is that the organ stops functioning leading to death. It can occur due to accidental injuries, stab injuries, surgical injuries as well as some blood diseases like haemophilia". 35. To counter the said medical evidence, accused examined one defence witness i.e. D.W.1 namely Dr. Manoj Lokhande, who stated that, he is M.S. Surgeon and practising as doctor at Barshi and he was serving as a consulting surgeon at Jagadale Mama Hospital, Barshi at the relevant time. He also stated that, on 12.5.2006 patient Nagnath Solankar was admitted into Jagdale Mama Hospital, Barshi and he treated to the said patient since beginning. He further stated that, as per case papers, he did the surgery on Nagnath on 13.5.2006, who died on 18.5.2006 at Jagdale Mama Hospital. He further stated that, according to him, it is not possible that due to surgery, blood clot occurs in the blood vessel and patient may sustain respiratory problem and may die. He further stated that, as per case papers, he did the surgery on Nagnath on 13.5.2006, who died on 18.5.2006 at Jagdale Mama Hospital. He further stated that, according to him, it is not possible that due to surgery, blood clot occurs in the blood vessel and patient may sustain respiratory problem and may die. During cross-examination he was confronted with Exhibit 63 and he stated that the said endorsement is in his handwriting and under his signature and he further stated that in the case paper the history of alleged assault is noted. 36. On the basis of aforesaid evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution as well as defence. the learned counsel for the appellant made submission that the above discussed medical evidence suggests the cause of death of the victim Nagnath as due to cardio respiratory arrest due to pulmonary embolism and canvassed that the deceased Nagnath met with the death which occurred due to surgical injuries as stated in the testimony of P.W.8 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad, that pulmonary embolism is caused due to blood clot which gets plugged in the blood vessel of lung thereby causing efficiency of blood supply to the remaining part of lung which causes respiratory and cardiac failure and thereby death, and as revealed in Court question which was put to P.W.8 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad, it can occur due to accidental injury, stab injury, "surgical injury" and some blood diseases like haemophilia and, therefore, it is submitted that possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased Nagnath expired due to surgical injury developing pulmonary embolism and, therefore, consequently submitted that appellant is required to be given benefit of doubt. However, as rightly pointed out by learned A.P.P., it is significant to note that, defence only examined D.W.1 Dr. Manoj Lokhande, who carried out surgery on injured Nagnath and he categorically stated that. according to him, it is not possible that due to surgery blood clot occurs in blood vessels and patient may sustain respiratory problem and may die, and pertinently, the medical evidence brought by defence through D.W.1 Dr. Manoj Lokhande itself hampers and wipes off the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant and. therefore, considering the totality of the evidence. Manoj Lokhande itself hampers and wipes off the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant and. therefore, considering the totality of the evidence. it can be safely concluded that victim Nagnath met with the death due to cardio respiratory arrest due to pulmonary embolism which was sustained by him due to stab injury which was caused by appellant herein as come on record through the above referred three eyewitnesses who have given the concurrent evidence in that respect and hence, the medical evidence and the eye-witness account connects the appellant with the crime and there is no substance in the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any benefit of doubt and the said argument deserves to be discarded. 37. The learned A.P.P. urged that, the panchanama of the seizure of the knife (Exhibit 49) discloses that, the blade of the knife, Article 4 is 4 inches from the handle and its width was 1 inch and the said knife was sharp edged knife having blood stains thereon and learned A.P.P. further submitted that, keeping in mind the said measurement and coming to the post-mortem notes (Exhibit 65), and more particularly clause No.17 thereof, which discloses the measurement of the external injury sustained by the victim Nagnath that incised wound admeasuring 6 x 3 x 10 cm. (in depth), it is seen that, the assailant/appellant gave a forceful blow on the stomach of victim Nagnath and the entire blade of 4 inches was penetrated into the stomach of victim Nagnath i.e. up to 10 cms. depth, which itself indicates that the intention of assailant/appellant to commit murder of deceased Nagnath. To counter the said argument, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said argument bears no substance and same cannot be accepted. 38. Considering the rival submissions and considering the above referred measurement of knife as stated in the seizure panchanama (Exhibit 49) and also considering the external injury sustained by victim Nagnath as specifically stated in clause No.17 of the post mortem notes and measurement thereof, it is amply clear that the said injury was sustained by the victim on the vital part of the body i.e. left iliac fossa i.e. on the stomach and the said wound admeasures 6 x 3 x 10 cms. (depth) and the blade of the said knife of 4 inches i.e. 10 cms. and, therefore, it is amply clear that the appellant gave such a blow on the stomach of victim Nagnath that the entire blade of knife of 4 inches i.e. 10 cms. up to the handle was penetrated into the stomach of victim Nagnath and accordingly, the said nature of injury, situs of the injury and the force applied while causing the said injury cumulatively are indicative of very intention of the assailant i.e. appellant herein to murder the victim Nagnath and accordingly, the said argument certainly bears substance and connects the appellant with the crime. 39. The learned counsel for the appellant also canvassed that the statement of P.W.4 Chandrakala was recorded on 19.5.2006 i.e. after seven days from the occurrence of the incident i.e. on 12.5.2006, and no explanation has been given by prosecution for the said delay, and hence, submitted that it comes under the cloud of suspicion, and consequently her deposition cannot be believed. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P., although the incident occurred on 12.5.2006, the victim expired on 18.5.2006 and. therefore, statement of P.W.4 Chandrakala who is widow of victim, came to be recorded thereafter i.e. on 19.5.2006 and could not be recorded during the said period due to disturbed mental condition of P.W.4. can be accepted as plausible explanation, and consequently, her testimony cannot be doubted on the said ground. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case of Pappu @ Hari Om Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2181 (S.C.)], wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: "Four persons including deceased were playing cards near electric pole. Accused appellant and co-accused requested to join them. Deceased objected and quarrel ensued. Appellant went away abusing deceased and came back with a gun in his hand and fired gun shot which injured right shoulder of deceased and thereby he died on his way to hospital. It was held that, considering that bullet fired hit the shoulder of deceased appropriate conviction would be under Section 304, Part-II and life imprisonment reduced to eight years R.I." 41. It was held that, considering that bullet fired hit the shoulder of deceased appropriate conviction would be under Section 304, Part-II and life imprisonment reduced to eight years R.I." 41. However, in the said case, the bullet was fired and same was hit upon the shoulder of the deceased, but so is not the position in the instant case and in the present case, assailant/appellant gave blow of knife on the stomach of the victim i.e. vital part of the body and as discussed hereinabove, considering the force applied while giving the said blow and situs as well as nature of the injury and the weapon used i.e. knife, the very intention of the assailant/appellant can be very well gathered to be to murder the victim and hence, the facts and circumstances in the present case and the facts and circumstances in the above referred case differ from each other and hence, the observations made in the said case cannot be of any aid and assistance to the appellant herein. 42. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is amply clear that the view adopted by the learned trial Judge, after scrutinising and assessing the evidence on record, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is a possible view to be adopted, and considering the totality of the evidence and assessment thereof, we are of the considered view that no perversity is found in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge and hence, no interference therein is warranted in the present appeal and. Therefore present appeal deserves to be dismissed and same stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.