Judgment :- A.R. Joshi, J. 1. Heard rival submissions on this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 11.3.2005 passed by 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to suffer SI for three months. The appellant-accused was also convicted for the offence under Section 309 of IPC. However, no separate sentence was imposed on him. The appellant-accused was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-to the legal heirs of victim i.e. PWs 2 and 3. 3. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under:- The appellant-accused and his family members, victim and her family members are residents of the same locality i.e. Madrasipada. The appellant-accused had love affair with the victim Saida who was married to one Suresh PW-3. Said Suresh had later on converted to Islam as victim Saida was of Muslim religion. Victim Saida had her daughter, aged about 10 years, PW-2 Nimira was staying with her. The incident took place at about 7:00 pm on 5.2.2003. When victim and her daughter PW-2 were alone at home, the appellant-accused raised quarrel with the victim and told her to accompany him wherever he wanted to go. Victim declined and on this there was altercation between the two. It was noticed by PW-2 Nimira, daughter of the victim. The news of such quarrel reached to PW-1 Saraswatibai Naidu. She was a social worker of the said area. She visited the house of the victim and tried to pacify situation. However, without any success. During the said quarrel which was witnessed by PW 1 and 2, the appellant/accused took out a knife and gave blows on the chest and other parts of body of the victim and also on her legs and hands. There were about nine incised wounds and two abrasions. The incised wounds were on vital parts of the body. Due to the assault, victim collapsed on the person of the appellant-accused. Probably she died on the spot. Various people gathered on the spot. It is also the case of the prosecution that immediately after the assault on the victim, the appellant-accused got self inflicted injuries on his person with the help of some knife. Due to the assault, victim collapsed on the person of the appellant-accused. Probably she died on the spot. Various people gathered on the spot. It is also the case of the prosecution that immediately after the assault on the victim, the appellant-accused got self inflicted injuries on his person with the help of some knife. He also sustained severe injuries on his abdomen. Injured appellant-accused was removed to Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar along with the victim. Intimation was given to the police. PW-1 Saraswatibai Naidu lodged complaint to the police. It was treated as FIR Exh.6. Offence was registered against the appellant-accused for Sections 302 and 309 of IPC. 4. During the investigation, scene of offence panchnama was drawn. Blood samples were taken. Clothes of the victim were taken charge of. That time broken pieces of bangles were found, so also blood stained knife which was used by the appellant-accused for assault was also taken charge of from the scene of offence. Dead body of victim was sent for postmortem. Initially, the appellant-accused was in hospital under treatment. He was treated by PW-10 Dr Salve at Ulhasnagar Central Hospital. Subsequently, on 8.2.2003, the appellant-accused was put under arrest and the clothes from his person were taken charge of. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis. After obtaining reports and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Matter was committed to the court of Sessions and it was tried ending in conviction of the appellant for offence u/s 302 and 309 of IPC. 5. Prior to appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant-accused, certain admitted position is required to be mentioned in order to crystallize the circumstances. The said admitted facts are as under :- (1) There was love affair between the appellant and victim. (2) On the night of the incident, the accused had visited the house of victim. (3) There was quarrel between the accused and victim during which there was assault on the victim and accused also sustained stab injuries due to self-inflicted wounds. (4) The appellant-accused and also the victim were immediately taken to Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar for treatment wherein victim died and accused survived. 6. Apart from the above admitted position, it is also required to be mentioned that the complainant PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution, though allegedly she witnessed the assault and lodged the complaint. (4) The appellant-accused and also the victim were immediately taken to Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar for treatment wherein victim died and accused survived. 6. Apart from the above admitted position, it is also required to be mentioned that the complainant PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution, though allegedly she witnessed the assault and lodged the complaint. She was declared hostile and questions were put to her in the nature of cross-examination by learned A.P.P. PW No.2 Nimira was present at the house during the incident of assault and at the time of the incident she was ten years of age. Entire case of the prosecution is based on testimony of PW-2 Nimira coupled with factual circumstance that accused was also found in injured condition on the spot and he was also taken to the hospital for medical treatment along with the victim. 7. Now, coming to the defence raised on behalf of the appellant-accused, the following are the points which are brought to our notice on behalf of the appellant-accused. (a) When the appellant-accused has visited the house of the victim, other three four persons arrived there and they caught hold of the appellant-accused and victim and one of them assaulted the appellant-accused and victim by means of knife and then ran away from the spot. (b) Alternatively, it was the case of accidental injuries sustained by the victim, if it is accepted that the appellant accused had assaulted the victim with the help of knife. This is more so, when according to the case of the prosecution, after the assault victim fell on the person of the appellant-accused and in that process probably sustained the injury to the vital parts of the body. (c) There was no intention on the part of the appellant-accused to kill the victim, if it is accepted that the appellant-accused had assaulted the victim with the knife, initially, assault was on the legs and hands and then the victim fell on his person and received injuries to her chest and other parts of body. More so, the matter may be brought down from section 302 to 304 (Part I) or (Part II) of IPC, inasmuch as there was a sudden quarrel between the parties in which in a heat of anger the appellant-accused assaulted the victim and he had no intention to kill. 8. More so, the matter may be brought down from section 302 to 304 (Part I) or (Part II) of IPC, inasmuch as there was a sudden quarrel between the parties in which in a heat of anger the appellant-accused assaulted the victim and he had no intention to kill. 8. In order to substantiate the defence raised above, appellant-accused had examined himself as defence witness No.1 and also examined his brother-in-law, one Vijayan Pille as defence witness No.2. In the substantiate evidence of both these defence witnesses, the first defence is spelt out. Now, it is to be ascertained whether such defence is brought before the court as after thought or whether the circumstances did happen as mentioned by the appellant-accused and his defence witnesses. On this aspect we have seen that such defence of some three four unknown persons coming to the house of victim and assaulting the appellant-accused and also the victim with knife, is coming before the court only for the first time when accused gave his evidence as DW-1 and examined DW-2 Vijayan Pille as his defence witness. Even said defence is not put to any of the prosecution witnesses much less to PW-2, an eye-witness, Nimira, daughter of the victim. We have also seen that even this defence is not put to PW-1 complainant Saraswatibai Naidu. This witness did not support the case of the prosecution and had turned as hostile. Even she was not put to this story of the accused. Even this defence was not put to PW-4 Hamadali Pirmal Shetty, who is a neighbour of the victim. He also allegedly witnessed the incident of assault. However, he also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. According to DW No.2 Vijayan Pille, he was present at the time of the incident outside the house of victim and when he heard the noise from the house of victim he went there and saw that one person had caught hold of the appellant and he also saw that the appellant had sustained some injuries, so also the victim Saida had fallen down on the person of the appellant. Thereafter, he went to police station and brought police to the spot and then took the appellant-accused to the hospital. During the cross-examination of this DW No.2 Vijayan Pille, it is brought on record that he had not given any complaint in writing to the police. Thereafter, he went to police station and brought police to the spot and then took the appellant-accused to the hospital. During the cross-examination of this DW No.2 Vijayan Pille, it is brought on record that he had not given any complaint in writing to the police. He further stated that he did not try to catch hold of said alleged assailants and did not come forward to rescue the appellant-accused. 9. Considering the effect of substantiate evidence of PW No.2 Nimira and effect of the defence witnesses, in our considered view there is nothing to accept the first defence as to assault by some unknown four persons, even on preponderance of probabilities. 10. So far as second defence is concerned regarding accidental injuries, it is highly improbable that a victim would suffer such deep incised wounds on her chest and other vital parts of the body due to accident. On this aspect, reference is required to be made to the description of injuries which are observed by PW No.11 Dr Ramesh Deshmukh who performed the postmortem on the dead body of the victim. On this aspect, the relevant evidence of PW No.11 is reproduced hereunder with advantage. “Upon my examination, I found the following external injuries as under and they are noted at column no.17. (1) Incised wound over chest left side 1 ½ “x 1”. (2) I.W. below left breast 1”x 1 ½ x cavity deep. (3) I.W. Near injury no.2, ½” x ½” cavity deep. (4) I.W. Near injury No.3, 1 ½ “x 1” cavity deep. (5) I.W. Near umbilicus 3” x 4” x cavity deep. (6) I.W. Over left arm 2” x 2” x 1” deep. (7) I.W. Over left elbow 2” x 1” x ½ “deep. (8) I.W. Over left wrist 1” x 1” x ½ “deep. (9) I.W. Over left thigh 1” x 1” x 1”deep. (10) Abrasion over right forearm 2 x 2 cm. (11) Abrasion over left forearm 2x 2 cms. All injuries are antimortem. Internal injuries are mentioned in column no.21. Pericardium torn below injury no. 5 of column no.17 with evidence of hemo peritoneum around 2-3 liters with evidence of tear of abdominal aorta just above the bifurcation. There was tear on the ileum. There was evidence of tear of left lobe of liver. The column no. 20, the injuries are mentioned as in the column No. 17. Pericardium torn below injury no. 5 of column no.17 with evidence of hemo peritoneum around 2-3 liters with evidence of tear of abdominal aorta just above the bifurcation. There was tear on the ileum. There was evidence of tear of left lobe of liver. The column no. 20, the injuries are mentioned as in the column No. 17. I came to the conclusion that the patient died due to hemorrhagic shock due to injury to liver and abdominal aorta.” 11. Gravity of the injuries sustained by the victim speak regarding the forceful attack on the victim and that also on her vital parts of the body. Moreover, there is evidence of another doctor, PW-10 Dr Vilas Salve, who had observed the injuries on the appellant-accused and treated him in the evening of the date of the incident at Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar. At this juncture, the injuries observed by Dr Salve on the person of the appellant-accused can be mentioned with advantage as under :- “On 5.2.2003 I have examined patient Paneer Subramanium Shelman brought by his relative Vijayan Pille. Alleged history of suicidal attempt today at home at about 7:30 pm. Patient had self inflicted injury himself as history given by relative. On examination I noticed following injuries on his person. (1) Stab injury in right pyrimidine region near the umbilicus 1 cm x 1 cm paramedical region. (2) 4 stab wounds right side of the abdominal wall right side 2 cm apart from injury no.1. The injuries are grievous in nature. The injuries are possible by hard and sharp object. The injury was fresh within six hours. Accordingly, I issued injury certificate, now shown to me, bears my signature, contents are correct. It is at Exh.19. The identification mark of the patient are not noted. The injuries are possible by muddemal property, now shown to me. It is Art.No.3. 12. The substantive evidence of doctor, as mentioned above, indicate regarding the bringing of the appellant accused for treatment by his one relative by name Vijayan Pille. Admittedly, said Vijayan Pille is defence witness No.2 as mentioned above. It is significant to note that according to the evidence of Dr Salve said Vijayan Pille had given the history that the patient had self inflicted injuries. This is quite contrary to the defence taken by the accused as to assault by some unknown persons. 13. Admittedly, said Vijayan Pille is defence witness No.2 as mentioned above. It is significant to note that according to the evidence of Dr Salve said Vijayan Pille had given the history that the patient had self inflicted injuries. This is quite contrary to the defence taken by the accused as to assault by some unknown persons. 13. Now, coming to the third and fourth defence as to no intention to kill and the case can come under Exception 4 to section 300 of IPC, the substantive evidence of Dr Deshmukh PW-11 coupled with the contents of postmortem report speak volumes. In other words, the evidence on record definitely point out that the assault on the victim was deadly and definitely there was intention and knowledge of the appellant-accused to kill the victim. There is nothing brought on record that there was such a quarrel between the appellant accused and the victim on that evening so as to cause the appellant-accused to loose his balance and inflict injuries on the person of the victim. Apparently, from the case of the prosecution it transpires that the appellant-accused was armed with the knife when he entered the house of the victim on that evening and he asked the victim to follow him. However, on declining by the victim he assaulted her on vital parts of her body and killed her on the spot and then inflicted injuries on his person himself, hence by no stretch of imagination the matter can be covered under Exception 4 to section 300 of IPC which reads as under : Exception 4 to Section 33:- Exception 4 : “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation:-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault”. 14. In our considered view, the appellant accused had definitely intended to kill the victim and otherwise also used the knife and inflicted grave injuries on the person of the victim and thus he is not entitled for the dilution of the offence as claimed. 15. Considering the above material on record, in our considered view, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction for the offence charged. 15. Considering the above material on record, in our considered view, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction for the offence charged. In the result, there is no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed and disposed of. The present order be communicated to the appellant-accused who is in jail, through the concerned jail authorities, where he is presently lodged.