Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 937 (BOM)

Raju Narayan Shirke v. State of Goa

2012-05-04

F.M.REIS, MOHIT S.SHAH

body2012
Judgment :- F.M. Reis, J. 1. Heard Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent-State. 2. The challenge in the above Appeal is to the conviction of the Appellant in Sessions Case no. 4/2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Goa, at Panaji, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. It was the case of the prosecution/Respondents that the Appellant and the deceased were residing in a house at Piddukarwada, Jogiwada, IDC Road Bicholim and that there were frequent quarrels between the two over drinks relating to the use of a portion of the house by the accused who was admittedly married to the sister of the deceased. It is further their contention that the Appellant was doing his tailoring job in a portion of the house of the deceased who was residing with his aged mother and sister and that on the fateful night, the Appellant had stabbed the said deceased Sanjay in his stomach using a knife when he had gone to have a wash after dinner and caused bleeding injuries to him. It is further the case of the prosecution that the Appellant had soon thereafter left the house and was detained only during the early hours of the next morning whilst returning home by the Police who were keeping guard on him. It is further their case that the incident of assault was a fall out of a difference between the Appellant and the deceased relating to the house property belonging to the deceased and his mother and his married sister residing in the portion of the rear side with the Appellant. 4. The defence raised by the Appellant was of denial and of false implication. 5. After charges were framed against the Appellant by the learned Session Judge, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and claimed to be tried. 6. 4. The defence raised by the Appellant was of denial and of false implication. 5. After charges were framed against the Appellant by the learned Session Judge, the Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of their case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses mainly being family members, Doctors, Police and other witnesses to establish the charge against the Appellant who broadly denied the case of the prosecution in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 7. After appreciating the evidence on record and going through the material adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge found the Appellant guilty of having committed offences under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and directed him to undergo imprisonment and fine referred to herein above. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 31.07.2010 which continued on 21.08.2010, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 9. Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has advanced submission to the effect that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to establish that they have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no direct evidence on record to establish that the Appellant had committed the crime. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the prosecution is only relying upon circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances which could disclose that the Appellant had committed the offence. The learned Counsel has first taken us through the evidence of Pw.7, Rukmini Pawar, mother in law of the Appellant as well as the evidence of Pw.10, Revathy Pawar, the wife of the Appellant Pw.11, Milan Shirke, and pointed out that there are inconsistencies with the versions made therein and, as such, such inconsistencies should be to the benefit of the Appellant. Learned Counsel has taken us through the evidence of Pw.7, Rukmini Pawar, and pointed out that though she claims that she was at the house, there is nothing incriminating stated by her in her deposition. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the evidence of Pw.10, Revathy Pawar, cannot also be accepted as, apparently, her version is only due to the sympathy to her deceased brother who had expired. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the evidence of Pw.10, Revathy Pawar, cannot also be accepted as, apparently, her version is only due to the sympathy to her deceased brother who had expired. The learned Counsel, as such submits, that once such evidence is discarded, there is nothing on record to establish that the Appellant has committed the alleged offence. The learned Counsel thereafter took us through the evidence of Pw.1, Dinesh Rajput, Pw.2, Sudir Pawar, Pw.15, Savita Pawar and Pw.17, Ulhas Parab, and pointed out that reading the evidence as a whole of the aforesaid witnesses would disclose that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances which could incriminate the Appellant in the alleged crime. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the mother of the deceased, Pw.7, was only the eye witness who has not stated anything which could incriminate the Appellant in the alleged crime. The learned Counsel further pointed out that different versions were narrated with regard to the words allegedly stated by the deceased after his alleged assault. The learned Counsel, as such submits, that these versions of Pw.7, are to be disbelieved. The learned Counsel has taken us through the evidence of Pw.1, Dinesh, and evidence of Pw.15, Savita, and pointed out that reading the evidence of the said witnesses as a whole, can by no stretch of imagination, be said to be incriminating to the Appellant herein. The learned Counsel has also taken us through the medical evidence and the depositions of the Doctors and others examined by the prosecution and pointed out that there were no blood stains on the clothes or nail clippings of the Appellant and that there is no forensic evidence as against the Appellant. The learned Counsel has also taken us through the panchanama and the witnesses examined by the prosecution and pointed out that there is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that the Appellant had committed the alleged crime and, as such, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified to convict the Appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel further pointed out that, in any event and without prejudice to the above submissions, going through the evidence as a whole, the Appellant could have been convicted at the most for an offences punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code as the evidence discloses that there was provocation on the part of the victim. 10. On the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has pointed out that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there is no dispute that the victim was the brother in law of the Appellant and he was married to his sister. He further pointed out that the evidence on record discloses that both of them were in inimical terms on account of some property disputes. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that on the relevant date, the evidence discloses that after dinner, the Appellant was sitting at the verandah and thereafter he assaulted the victim which resulted in his death. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the words narrated by the victim which have been heard by the prosecution witnesses further disclose that the Appellant had committed the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the prosecution established that the Appellant was apprehended at 4.40 a.m. on the subsequent day immediately after the crime was committed. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the Appellant has not given any explanation as in what circumstances he was apprehended at the said point of time when such an incident had occurred at the residence. Learned Public Prosecutor has further taken us through the evidence of Pw.5, Dr. Jude D' Souza, Pw.11, Milan Shirke and Pw.12, Dr. Girish Kamat, and pointed out that the evidence of the said witnesses further corroborate the fact that the Appellant was responsible for committing the offence. The Public Prosecutor further points out that one has to believe Pw.7, Pw.10 and Pw.11, as that there are no variances in their depositions. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Pw.11, Milan Shirke, has clearly stated that the knife was belonging to her. The Public Prosecutor further points out that one has to believe Pw.7, Pw.10 and Pw.11, as that there are no variances in their depositions. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that Pw.11, Milan Shirke, has clearly stated that the knife was belonging to her. Learned Public Prosecutor has minutely taken us through the evidence on record as well as the material adduced by the prosecution and the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and has submitted that the learned Judge has correctly examined every piece of evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly has sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and fine. Learned Public Prosecutor as such submits that there is no case made out by the Appellant for any interference in the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. For the purpose of appreciating the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State, it is necessary to advert to the evidence of the material witnesses on which the conviction is recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. Before going through the other evidence on record, as the Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to consider the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate that the victim died of homicide. The Respondents have examined Dr. Jude D' Souza, Pw.5, who has produced certificate at exhibit 20-C-95 colly and he has stated in his deposition that the victim had injuries namely stab injuries 5 x 4 cms depth not visible situated 5 cms below umbilicus on anterior abdominal wall, a fat tissue 30 x 15 cms projecting out of stab wound. He has further pointed out that Blood was present at the site of the injuries and that he was declared dead on the same day at 10.20 p.m. 13. The next Medical Officer examined is Dr. Girish Kamat, Pw.12, who has produced the autopsy report at exhibit 42/140 and has stated that autopsy examination was performed on 10.10.2008 and has further stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of damage for abdominal vital organs vide injuries nos. The next Medical Officer examined is Dr. Girish Kamat, Pw.12, who has produced the autopsy report at exhibit 42/140 and has stated that autopsy examination was performed on 10.10.2008 and has further stated that the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of damage for abdominal vital organs vide injuries nos. 1 caused by sharp pointed cutting edged penetrating weapon which was ante mortem and fresh at the time of death and which was vital in the ordinary course of nature. He has further stated that on injury no.1, on cutting and removal of the hospital dressing bandage from the umbilical and infra umbilical region of the abdomen showed 20 x 9 cms greater omental fat protruding out from the incised penetrating wound and dried blood was present around umbilical, infra umbilical region. He has further stated that the blade of the knife, described weapon, could cause the injury no.1 as described in the memorandum of autopsy exhibit 42. The said report establishes that the death of the victim had occurred due to haemorrhagic shock and such injuries were caused on account of a pointed weapon. The said opinion of the Doctor cannot be disputed nor has been disputed by the Appellants and, as such, there is no hesitation to infer that the death of the deceased Sanjay is homicidal death. 14. Once it is concluded that the death of the deceased Sanjay is a homicidal death, the next question which would have to be considered is whether the Appellant can be held responsible for the injuries found on the deceased Sanjay which resulted in his death. 15. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find that Pw.15, Savita Pawar, who is the sister in law, has stated that the Appellant was seated on the chair and that when she heard the alarm, she found that her sister in law Milan was holding Sanjay and sitting on the floor. She has further stated that the said deceased Sanjay had sustained bleeding injuries on his stomach and blood was oozing. She has further stated that she saw the Appellant seated on the chair in the verandah and there was a knife on the table near him which was stained with blood and that the said knife had yellow handle and the blade was of steel. 16. She has further stated that she saw the Appellant seated on the chair in the verandah and there was a knife on the table near him which was stained with blood and that the said knife had yellow handle and the blade was of steel. 16. P.w.13, Jallo Paryenkar, who is the panch witness, has stated in his depositing that the knife was located measuring eleven inches with a handle length of 4.5 inches and the blade length being 6.5 inches sharp edge at a distance of about 9 metres away approximately. 17. Dr. Girish Kamat, Pw.12, has also opined that such weapon could cause the injuries which resulted in the death of the victim. Though the C.F.S.L. Report has stated that no blood was detected on the knife, nevertheless, the evidence adduced by the Respondent establish the existence of the said weapon at the site and further that the said weapon could cause the injuries which were found on the victim. 18. Pw.7, Rukmini Narayan Pawar, has stated that her daughter Milan is married to the Appellant. She has further stated that the said Appellant was residing at separate portion of the house while she was staying in the other area and he was carrying out tailoring in the house. She has further stated that on the relevant date, the Appellant was sitting in the verandah and that she heard her son Sanjay shouting. She further stated that she had rushed to him and found that he had sustained bleeding injuries and at that time, the Appellant was sitting in the verandah. She has further stated that the relationship between the Appellant and the victim was cordial. In the cross examination, she has stated that she cannot say as to whether the Appellant was inside or outside the house when she rushed to the site. 19. P.w.11, Milan Shirke, who is the wife of the Appellant, has stated that on 09.10.2008, at about 20.00 hours, the Appellant was having his drinks in the verandah and at about 21.00 hours, the deceased came home and that the Appellant had his dinner and sat outside while the deceased went to his house for dinner. She has further stated that she had heard the voice of Sanjay calling her and she rushed inside the house and she found Sanjay, the victim, in the verandah and the Appellant was nearby. She has further stated that she had heard the voice of Sanjay calling her and she rushed inside the house and she found Sanjay, the victim, in the verandah and the Appellant was nearby. She has further stated that she inquired from Sanjay, what had happened and he told her that the Appellant had stabbed him with a knife in his stomach. She also stated that she found blood oozing from his stomach. In the cross examination, she had stated that the Appellant and the deceased were barely two metres away from each other and the deceased Sanjay was in standing position. She has further stated that she was the first person to go on hearing the alarm. 20. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are Pw.10-Revathy Pawar and Pw.15-Savita Pawar. In her statement, Pw.10-Revathy, has stated that she heard the deceased Sanjay shouting and that the Appellant was outside the house at the relevant time. She was confronted in the cross examination about the said alarm in the statement before the police. She has further stated that there were no quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased on the relevant day. 21. Reading the evidence of the said witnesses conclusively establishes the fact that the Appellant was present at the scene of offence. The presence of the Appellant is corroborated by the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses including the wife of the Appellant who is PW.11-Milan Shirke, who has stated that he was at the place where the deceases Sanjay was stabbed. 22. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge whilst passing the impugned Judgment has on the basis of such circumstances, rightly held that in such circumstances, the conduct of the accused assumes significance as he could shed light on how the deceased sustained injuries when he was around when admittedly there was no entry of any other person in their house at the relevant time. The fact that there was only a knife which was thereafter identified at the location where the deceased was found with bleeding injuries in the house on the said night has also been duly established. Considering that the Respondents have established the presence of the accused in or around the vicinity where the deceased was found bleeding, no explanation came from the Appellant in what circumstances the deceased suffered such injuries. Considering that the Respondents have established the presence of the accused in or around the vicinity where the deceased was found bleeding, no explanation came from the Appellant in what circumstances the deceased suffered such injuries. This is an enumerated circumstance against the accused established by the Respondent. 23. As stated herein above, we have found that the presence of the accused-Appellant at the site of offence has been established by the prosecution. The Appellant did not show any reaction to the incident and continued to remain at the place despite of the fact that the deceased had suffered stab injuries. The Appellant also did not make any attempt to provide any medical assistance to the deceased immediately. This attitude of the Appellant would be relevant for the purpose of considering his involvement in the crime. The evidence further discloses that after the neighbours had gathered, the Appellant had ran away. This can be deduced from the evidence of Pw.2-Sudir Pawar, who has stated that there were several people gathered and he did not see the Appellant anywhere. This behaviour of the Appellant is also relevant for the purpose of considering the involvement of the Appellant in commission of the crime. 24. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in (2010) 12 S.C.C. 310 in the case of Manu Sao v. State of Bihar, has held at para 27, thus : "27. The above evidence clearly satisfies the conditions stated by this Court, which need to be satisfied in a case of circumstantial evidence in Sharad1. The circumstances proved by the prosecution are of a conclusive nature and they do exclude the possibility of any other view which could be taken rationally and reasonably. The fact of the matter is that the deceased died while living with the appellant and he ought to explain his conduct and he was expected to render some explanation which was reasonably possible in the facts and circumstances of the case in regard to the cause of her death." 25. The Apex Court in another Judgment reported in (2011) 12 S.C.C. 554 in the case of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal, has held at para 53 thus : “53. The Apex Court in another Judgment reported in (2011) 12 S.C.C. 554 in the case of Amitava Banerjee @ Amit @ Bappa Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal, has held at para 53 thus : “53. The fact that Babusona and the Appellant were seen together in Sitaldihi jungle around 6.00/6.30 p.m. on 12th July, 1998 is a highly incriminating circumstance, especially when according to the medical evidence the time of death of the deceased was also around the same time. The deceased having been last seen with the Appellant around the time he was killed is a circumstance which together with other circumstances proved in the case, are explainable only on one hypothesis that the Appellant was guilty of killing the deceased.” 26. It is also not in dispute that though the crime had taken place somewhere at around 22.00 hours, but, however, the Appellant was apprehended at 4.40 a.m. on the following day. The evidence of Pw.8-PSI Terrence Vaz and Pw.14-Samir Kamulkar, would be relevant. 27. Pw.8-Terrence Vaz, has stated that he waited outside the house of the deceased Sanjay as per the instruction of PI Menezes as he was informed that the Appellant was not in the house after 22.45 hours. He further stated that at about 4.40 hours, he saw one person walking from the river side which description roughly met with the description of the suspect. He, thereafter, called out the name of the Appellant and he caught hold of him and confirmed that his name was Raju Shirke. 28. The next relevant aspect to be considered is what was the motive of the said crime. To establish the motive, the prosecution has examined witnesses to contend that there was previous enmity between the Appellant and the victim. It is also sought to be contended that there were subsequent quarrels between them and that the Appellant was asked to go and leave the house and stay separately. In this context, it would be relevant to consider the statement of Pw.11-Milan, who is the wife of the Appellant, who has stated that the relationship was cordial when they were not under the influence of liquor. Revathy Pawar-Pw.10, has also stated that there were no quarrels on the said night. Pw.15-Savita, has also stated that the relationship between them was not cordial. Revathy Pawar-Pw.10, has also stated that there were no quarrels on the said night. Pw.15-Savita, has also stated that the relationship between them was not cordial. This evidence on record itself establishes that there were differences between the Appellant and the victim with regard to his occupation in the house. Further evidence of the said witnesses however points out that, on the relevant date, there were no quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased. Hence, prior to the incident, there was no occasion for any provocation on the part of the deceased which forced the Appellant to retaliate. 29. The learned Sessions Judge, whilst appreciating the evidence on record at para 16 of the impugned Judgment has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra bahri vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1994 S.C. 2420 , which held that sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and hence it is also a relevant factor for which evidence has to be recorded. At the same time, it is held that the absence of the proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime. 30. From the evidence on record, what transpires is that the Appellant along with his wife Pw. 11-Milan, were residing in the rear portion of the house since the time of her marriage to the accused-Appellant for nearly 18 years. When the Appellant returned home at about 20.00 hours on the relevant date, he had his drinks and thereafter little later, the deceased Sanjay returned home at about 21.00 hours. After the Appellant had his dinner, he sat outside while the deceased Sanjay went to his house to have his dinner and when Pw. 11-Milan had gone to answer a nature's call, she heard the voice of Sanjay calling out to her and she rushed inside and saw Sanjay in the verandah of the room and the Appellant was near him. 11-Milan had gone to answer a nature's call, she heard the voice of Sanjay calling out to her and she rushed inside and saw Sanjay in the verandah of the room and the Appellant was near him. The evidence of the said wife Pw.11-Milan, is unshaken in the cross examination that her husband and the deceased Sanjay were in the habit of consuming drinks and there used to be quarrels between them though otherwise their relationship was cordial. The evidence also discloses that at the relevant time, before the incident, there were no quarrels between Sanjay and the Appellant. Her evidence further discloses that when she went to the scene, she found the deceased Sanjay and the Appellant barely at a distance of two metres apart. All these factors have been taken note by the learned Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the wife of the Appellant, P.w.11-Milan, had made a faithful disclosure of what was seen by her and that there was no reason for her to implicate the accused-Appellant when their relationship was cordial. In this connection, the evidence of Pw.1-Dinesh also inspires confidence as he was an independent person who had no relationship with the family or animosity with the Appellant. He has clearly stated that the Appellant was in the house and was sitting in the verandah wearing a green coloured full sleeved shirt which corroborates the version given by Pw.15-Savita. These findings of the learned Sessions Judge, we find, cannot be faulted as the evidence of Pw.11-Milan read with the evidence of Pw.7-Rukmini and Pw.10-Revathy establish the circumstances which implead the Appellant in the commissioning of the crime. Though the exact motive has not been established by the prosecution, nevertheless, the fact that there was strained relationship between the Appellant and the deceased have been established on reading the evidence of the said witnesses who have stated that there were objections to the occupation of the Appellant in the rear portion of the house which was occupied also by the deceased besides his mother and the other family members. 31. 31. The learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the fact that upon the search of the area around their house, a knife with a silver colour blade and a yellow handle was found in the bushes 10 metres away and in front portion of the house which was of the length of 11 inches long with the blade length of 6.5 inches and the handle length of about 4.5 inches and the blade having one sharp edge of stainless steel. P.I. Menezes, Pw. 18, has also stated that the knife had stains possibly on either side of the knife blade and the words “GOLD” embossed on the handle. The knife was duly attached. The knife was thereafter sent to Dr. Kamat-Pw.12, for examination who confirmed that he had received the knife with the stated prescriptions and bearing the same details. Dr. Kamat-Pw.12, had also said that he had removed the paper and observed dry brownish stains on both sides of the knife which has a length of 16.5 cms from the tip. He has also stated that the tip of the knife had a sharp point and 1 mm thickness throughout except at the tip where it tapered to a point 3 mm from its proximal aspect. The evidence of said Dr. Kamat-Pw.12, read with the evidence of PI Menezes-Pw.18, and the Weapon Report, exhibit 46, establishes that the knife had a sharp pointed cutting edge and penetrating weapon which could cause injury no.1 as described in the Autopsy Report. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the said knife could be the weapon of commission of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the manner in which the injury was inflicted in the umbilicus area and which proved fatal within the next 15 minutes or so would clearly establish that the Appellant-Accused inflicted the said injuries with that degree of violence with the knowledge and intent to cause the death of the deceased Sanjay and has rightly held that the death of said deceased Sanjay was homicidal and not accidental and, therefore, the prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 32. 32. From the evidence on record and the material adduced by the prosecution establishing the testimonies of the witnesses referred to herein above, we have no reasons to come to any contrary conclusion. The evidence of the witnesses establish the circumstances which pointed out that the Appellant had committed the assault on the victim Sanjay which led to his death on account of the injuries inflicted on him by the Appellant with the said weapon. The incriminating factors and circumstances established by the prosecution are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the Accused-Appellant or the guilt of any other person. The presence of the Appellant-Accused at the scene of offence, his conduct thereafter and his arrest on the early hours of the following day coupled with the evidence of his wife Pw.12-Milan, the mother of the victim Pw.7-Rukmini and Pw.10-Revathy and other material referred to above, are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Appellant and show that in all human probability, the act has been done by the Appellant. 33. On going through the statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., we find that there is no explanation forthcoming from the Appellant about the fact that he was present at the scene of offence. Substantially, his statements have been of bare denials. The fact that he was apprehended at wee hours at 4.40 hours has not been explained in what circumstances he was found at the said place at that point of time. He has also not explained his disappearance from the scene of offence. All this evidence conclusively establishes that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 34. The contention of Shri Mahesh Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, to the effect that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of Pw.11-Milan Shirke and her mother and her sister Pw.10-Revathy, cannot be accepted. The evidence discloses that Pw.11-Milan, who is the wife of the Appellant had good relationship with the Appellant. The relationship between the husband and wife was cordial and, as such, there is no reason why said Pw.11-Milan, would implicate her own husband in commissioning of the crime. The evidence of the said wife establishes the involvement of the Appellant in the crime. The relationship between the husband and wife was cordial and, as such, there is no reason why said Pw.11-Milan, would implicate her own husband in commissioning of the crime. The evidence of the said wife establishes the involvement of the Appellant in the crime. She has clearly stated that after she went out, she found her brother deceased Sanjay having sustained injuries in the stomach and that he had stated that the Appellant had stabbed him. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of said Pw.11-Milan. On the basis of the said evidence of Pw.11-Milan and other corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution referred to above, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the Appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 35. The Judgment relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor, reported in (2010) 6 S.C.C. 1 , in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), is very much applicable to the facts of the present case. The Apex Court at Para 274 has held thus : Adverse inferences against the accused (i) False answers under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 274. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. In this regard, the prosecution seeks to place reliance on the judgments of this Court in Pershadi v. State of U.P., State of M.P. v. Ratan Lal and Anthony D'Souza v. State of Karnataka where this Court has drawn an adverse inference for wrong answers given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr. PC. In the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has, inter alia, taken false pleas in reply to Questions 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 67, 72, 75 and 210 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.” 36. PC. In the present case, the appellant Manu Sharma has, inter alia, taken false pleas in reply to Questions 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 67, 72, 75 and 210 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.” 36. Considering the said Judgment and taking note of the evasive replies of the Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the aforesaid proved facts that he was present at the scene of offence and his subsequent arrest and the death of the victim of stab injuries in the house which he was also occupying along with Pw.11, we find that there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution that the Appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 37. The contention of Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, raised without prejudice to his earlier contention, the Appellant can be at the most convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be accepted. There is no foundation laid by the Appellant on that count. In any event, considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which have been enumerated herein above, the evidence discloses that on the relevant date, there were no quarrels between the Appellant and the deceased. Hence, the evidence does not disclose that there was any provocation on the part of the deceased which led the Appellant to commit the crime. Hence, the said contention of Shri Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, deserves to be rejected. 38. On the overall material and after scrutinizing the evidence on record, we find that the learned Sessions Judge was justified to come to the conclusion that the Appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and impose the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/-. There is no infirmity committed by the learned Sessions Judge. 39. There is no case made out for any interference with the impugned Judgment. Hence the Appeal stands dismissed.