JUDGMENT (Per : Mrs.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) 1. The appellant/original accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 15/05/2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Trial No.54 of 2005. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. Five Thousand, in default to undergo R.I. for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code for causing hurt to Jaguta the learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.Two Thousand in default to undergo R.I. for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code for causing hurt to Suresh the learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.Two Thousand in default to undergo R.I. for six months. The learned Sessions Judge has directed that all the substantive sentences should run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under : P.W.3 Shiva was residing in village Sitasawangi along with his wife Mangala (deceased) and his mother P.W. 4 Jaguta. P.W. 5 Suresh was a friend of Shiva since childhood. P.W. 5 Suresh knew accused Francis as they both hail from same village. On account of this P.W. 5 Suresh used to visit house of Shiva very often. As the accused was also friend of Suresh he along with Suresh started visiting house of Shiva. Mangala did not like Francis and she had some apprehension about him. She informed this to her husband Shiva. Shiva, therefore, asked the accused not to come to their house. The accused then said that if Suresh comes to the house of Shiva then he would also come. On the day of the incident i.e. on 20/05/2005 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 4 Jaguta was in her house along with her daughterinlaw Mangala. Mangala was sitting in the front portion of their house. Mangala shouted that Francis had come and Mangala called Jaguta. Jaguta saw the accused assaulting Mangala. She asked the accused why he was assaulting her daughter in law. Thereupon, the accused inflicted knife blow on the left breast of Jaguta. Jaguta rushed out in the courtyard and raised a hue and cry. Mangala shouted that Francis had come and Mangala called Jaguta. Jaguta saw the accused assaulting Mangala. She asked the accused why he was assaulting her daughter in law. Thereupon, the accused inflicted knife blow on the left breast of Jaguta. Jaguta rushed out in the courtyard and raised a hue and cry. P.W. 5 Suresh and other persons came to the spot on hearing the shouts. They all caught hold of accused Francis. Mangala and Jaguta were taken to hospital. The statement of Jaguta was recorded in the hospital. P.W. 3 Shiva had gone to Paan Shop at about 7.00 p.m. He was informed that his wife was assaulted by means of knife. He saw that his mother was also lying in injured condition near the house. He took both of them to hospital. Shiva then lodged F.I.R. (Exh.24). Thereafter investigation commenced. P.W. 11 Dr. Giripunje examined P.W. 5 Jaguta. She noticed incised wound in left side 4, 5 and 6 intercostal space in mid clavicular line, size 5x1x ½ cm. caused by sharp object. She issued certificate (Exh.52) in relation to the injury on Jagutabai. Dr. Giripunje also examined P.W. 5 Suresh. She noticed two injuries on the body of Suresh i.e. (1) incised wound in lower abdomen just below umbilicus, size 8x2x1 cm caused by sharp object and (2) Abrasion over right palm of size 1x1 cm caused by blunt object. Accordingly she issued certificate (Exh.53). In the opinion of the doctor the knife used by the accused was capable of causing the said injuries. As Mangala had expired her body was sent for post mortem. P.W. 9 Dr. Patil performed post mortem on the dead body of Mangala. Dr. Patil found following external injuries on the dead body of Mangala : (1) Incised wound 1 ½ cm x ½ x 3 cm. of left side below left nipple. (2) Incised wound size 1x ½ x 2 ½ cm 5 cm below Axilla. (3) L.W. left arm 1 ½ c.m. X 1 c.m. (4) Fracture 3rd rib on left side. On internal examination the Doctor found that there was injury to the heart and lung and there was fracture to the rib. According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, heart and lung and due to fracture of ribs. On internal examination the Doctor found that there was injury to the heart and lung and there was fracture to the rib. According to the doctor, the cause of death was shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, heart and lung and due to fracture of ribs. After completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case was committed the Court of Session. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant/ original accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Mangala and under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to P.W. 4 Jaguta on her chest with knife and for causing injuries to P.W. 5 Suresh with knife on his abdomen. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as evidence in this case. After going through the evidence adduced in this case the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 for causing death of Mangala. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant under Section 307 for causing injuries to Jagutabai and Suresh, however, he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, separately, for causing injuries to Jagutabai and Suresh. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, we are of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. There are two eyewitnesses in this case. Both of them are injured witnesses. P.W. 4 Jaguta is motherinlaw of deceased Mangala. Jaguta has stated that her son P.W. 3 Shiva was residing in village Sitasawangi along with his wife Mangala (deceased) and herself. P.W. 5 Suresh was a friend of Shiva since childhood. On account of this P.W. 5 Suresh used to visit house of Shiva very often. P.W. 5 Suresh knew the accused Francis as they both hail from same village. P.W. 5 Suresh was a friend of Shiva since childhood. On account of this P.W. 5 Suresh used to visit house of Shiva very often. P.W. 5 Suresh knew the accused Francis as they both hail from same village. As the accused was a friend of Suresh, he along with Suresh started visiting house of Shiva. Mangala did not like Francis and she had some apprehension about him. She informed this to her husband Shiva. Shiva, therefore, asked the accused not to come to their house. The accused then said that if Suresh comes to the house of Shiva, then the accused would also come. On the day of the incident i.e. on 20.05.2005 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 4 Jaguta was in her house along with her daughter-in-law Mangala. Mangala was sitting in the front portion of their house. Mangala shouted that Francis had come and Mangala called Jaguta. Jaguta saw the accused assaulting Mangala. She asked the accused that why he was assaulting her daughter in law. Thereupon, the accused inflicted knife blow on the left breast of Jaguta. Jaguta raised a hue and cry. P.W. 5 Suresh and other persons came to the spot on hearing the shouts. They all caught hold of accused Francis. 6. P.W. 5 Suresh is also an injured witness. He has stated that at about 7.00 p.m. he heard shouts of Jaguta. When he reached there he saw accused Francis assaulting Jaguta with a knife. When Suresh tried to snatch the knife from the hands of the accused, the accused inflicted a blow with knife on stomach of Suresh. Suresh also called out for help, hence, many persons gathered there and they caught hold of Francis. Due to assault by the accused on Suresh there was serious bleeding due to which he became semiconscious. Suresh was taken to the hospital. He was in the hospital for six days. 7. Thus, it is noticed that there are two eyewitnesses. They are not only eyewitnesses but they are injured witnesses. Both of them knew the accused since prior to the incident. The incident had occurred at about 7.00 p.m. in the month of February, 2005, hence, it cannot be said that it was so dark that these two eyewitnesses could not have identified the assailants properly. We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses. Both of them knew the accused since prior to the incident. The incident had occurred at about 7.00 p.m. in the month of February, 2005, hence, it cannot be said that it was so dark that these two eyewitnesses could not have identified the assailants properly. We see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these two witnesses. Their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 11 Dr. Giripunje examined Jaguta as well as Suresh. She noticed incised wound in left side 4, 5 and 6 intercostal space in mid clavicular line, size 5x1x ½ cm. caused by sharp object. She issued certificate (Exh.52) in relation to the injury on Jagutabai. Dr. Giripunje also examined P.W. 5 Suresh. She noticed two injuries on the body of Suresh i.e. (1) incised wound in lower abdomen just below umbilicus, size 8x2x1 cm caused by sharp object and (2) Abrasion over right palm of size 1x1 cm caused by blunt object. Accordingly she issued certificate (Exh.53). In the opinion of the doctor the knife used by the accused was capable of causing the said injuries. As Mangala had expired her body was sent for post mortem. P.W. 9 Dr. Patil performed post mortem on the dead body of Mangala. Dr. patil found following external injuries on the dead body of Mangala : (1) Incised wound 1 ½ cm x ½ x 3 cm. of left side below left nipple. (2) Incised wound size 1x ½ x 2 ½ cm 5 cm below Axilla. (3) L.W. left arm 1 ½ c.m. X 1 c.m. (4) Fracture 3rd rib on left side. On internal examination, the Doctor found that there was injury to the heart and lung and there was fracture to the rib. According to the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of injuries to vital organs, heart and lung and due to fracture of ribs. 8. Testimonies of these two eyewitnesses that the accused also assaulted Mangala with knife is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Patil who performed post mortem on Mangala. The Doctor has clearly stated that the injuries found on body of Mangala were possible with the knife. 9. Motive for the incident has also been brought on record. P.W. 4 Jaguta has stated that the accused used to visit their house. Patil who performed post mortem on Mangala. The Doctor has clearly stated that the injuries found on body of Mangala were possible with the knife. 9. Motive for the incident has also been brought on record. P.W. 4 Jaguta has stated that the accused used to visit their house. They had asked the accused not to come to their house as their daughter in law was mostly alone in the house. The accused used to say that why Suresh used to visit their house and if Suresh can visit their house the accused can also visit house of Shiva. The motive is also brought out in the evidence of P.W. 3 Shiva who is husband of deceased Mangala and son of P.W. 4 Jaguta. Shiva has stated that Suresh and he were very close to each other. Accused Francis used to also visit his house. His wife had some apprehension from the accused. Therefore, Shiva told accused not to visit his house. Accused told Shiva that Suresh comes to Shiva's house then he (accused) will also come to Shiva's house. Shiva has stated that on the day before the incident, his wife Mangala had informed him that the accused had threatened that he would kill her. Thus, the motive for the incident has also been established by the prosecution. 10. Looking to the evidence on record, we find that there is sufficient material which connects the applicant with the crime. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted Mangala with knife and caused her death and he also assaulted Jaguta and Suresh with a knife and caused injuries to them. In this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.