JUDGMENT NARESH H. PATIL, J. Both the Appeals are filed by the respective accused persons being aggrieved by the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2009, dated 2nd April, 2011. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that deceased Rekhabai was married to Ganeshrao, after his first wife Kamalbai died. From Rekhabai one son and one daughter was born to Ganeshrao. From first wife, Ganeshrao had four children. Before 2 to 3 years of the incident in question, Rekhabai developed illicit relations with one Maroti Ingle, accused No. 1, who was resident of the same village. It is the prosecution case that Ganeshrao, husband of Rekhabai was timid person by nature. Rekhabai maintained illicit relations with the accused No. 1 Maroti by calling him in her house or in the field. Both of them used to maintain contact with each other on cell phone. PW-8 Godawaribai, the complainant, had noticed these relations developed between Rekhabai and accused No. 1 Maroti. She tried to caution Rekhabai that her conduct would spoil her married life, to which Rekhabai replied that her husband is unable to satisfy her sexually and therefore she was maintaining relations with accused No. 1 Maroti. 3. Near about 5 to 6 months prior to the incident, the complainant Godavaribai and deceased Rekhabai along with 40 to 50 villagers of Chandola, had been on pilgrimage. They visited various places. During those days, Ramesh Chavan, the resident of Chandola Tanda and Rekhabai became close. Thereafter both of them started keeping contact with each other on cell phone. Their relations further developed into illicit relationship. Accused No. 1 Maroti came to know this fact. He warned Rekhabai not to maintain relations with Ramesh. Rekhabai replied to Maroti that he should not visit her house as she was defamed much due to him. This talk took place prior to one month of the incident in question. Maroti changed SIM Card from the cell phone of Rekhabai. Rekhabai continued to talk with Ramesh on Mobile hand-set of Godavaribai. She disclosed this fact to Maroti. When Maroti Ingale came to know this fact, he told Rekhabai that if he would see Ramesh in the house of Rekhabai, he would commit murder of Ramesh by piercing knife in his stomach. Rekhabai continued to talk with Ramesh on Mobile hand-set of Godavaribai. She disclosed this fact to Maroti. When Maroti Ingale came to know this fact, he told Rekhabai that if he would see Ramesh in the house of Rekhabai, he would commit murder of Ramesh by piercing knife in his stomach. On that, Rekhabai warned Maroti that he is not her husband and he should not visit her house in future. 4. On 28th July, 2009, Ramesh Chavan called Rekhabai at about 4.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. on mobile hand-set of Godavaribai, who handed over that mobile hand-set, after putting it on speaker phone mode. On both occasions Ramesh Chavan informed Rekhabai that he would visit her house after 9.00 p.m. to sleep and at that time Rekhabai should drive her husband out. Rekhabai answered in the affirmative. Meanwhile Maroti called Rekahabai on phone and she informed him that she had called Ramesh to her house and Maroti should visit her after some time for sleeping. Thereafter Rekhabat disclosed to Godavaribai that Ashok Digambar Ingale, accused No. 2, also warned her that Rekhabai should not allow Ramesh Chavan to visit her house. Rekhabai took her dinner and went to bed in a room known as "Baithak", Godavaribai had also taken her dinner and was waiting for her husband to come. 5. At about 10.00 p.m. Godavaribai went towards Baithak of Rekhabai and she saw that Ramesh Chavan and Maroti Yelge entered the house of Rekhabai. Immediately Maroti Ingale and Ashok Ingale, accused Nos. 1 and 2, also entered the house of Rekhabai. The light in the Baithak was on. Then Maroti Ingle, accused No. 1 uttered "Saleho Atta Sapadale" and took out a knife from right side pocket of his trouser and inflicted blow on stomach of Rekhabai, who fell on the floor from the cot. Accused No. 1 Maroti Ingale inflicted second blow of knife in the abdomen of Ramesh Chavan. Ashok Ingale, accused No. 2, caught hold of Ramesh while Maroti assaulted him. Maroti Yelge escaped from their clutches and ran out side. Both the accused ran away after the assault. They were followed by Ramesh. Godavaribai entered the house and found that blood was oozing from the injury of Rekhabai. She raised hue and cry. Ashok Ingale, accused No. 2, caught hold of Ramesh while Maroti assaulted him. Maroti Yelge escaped from their clutches and ran out side. Both the accused ran away after the assault. They were followed by Ramesh. Godavaribai entered the house and found that blood was oozing from the injury of Rekhabai. She raised hue and cry. Persons gathered there Labour Pandu brought auto rickshaw and Rekhabai was carried in that auto rickshaw in primary health center, Chandola, where compounder declared Rekhabai dead. 6. On 28th July, 2009, at about 11.05 hours Medical Officer, Sub District Hospital, Mukhed informed police officer about the admission of Ramesh Chavan in the hospital in injured condition. 7. On 29th July, 2009, at about 6.30 a.m. Godavaribai lodged complaint which was reduced in writing. An offence at Crime No. 121 of 2009 was registered. Police started investigation. Inquest panchnama was prepared. Spot panchnama was drawn. The police seized chappals, sample of simple earth, blood stained earth and broken pieces of bangles from the spot of occurrence. Statement of Ramesh Chavan was recorded by the Investigating Officer. On the same day in the evening hours, Medical Officer performed postmortem on the dead body of Rekhabai. Provisional postmortem certificate was issued and the dead body was handed to the brother of the deceased. Police recorded statements of witnesses and filed charge-sheet. Charge was framed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 35 of 2009 on 8th September, 2010. Both the accused pleaded not to be guilty and came to be tried. 8. The prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses out of list of 40 witnesses. 9. Godavaribai, the complainant, was examined as prosecution witness No. 8. In her examination in chief, she admitted that there were illicit relations between Rekhabai and accused No.1 Maroti. The husband of Rekhabai was elder brother in law of Godavaribai. According to the witness, due to timid nature of the husband of Rekhabai, she was maintaining illicit relations with accused No.1 Maroti at her house and in her field, without knowledge of her husband. Both, the accused No.1 and Rekhabai used to remain in contact on cell phone. She tried to convince Rekhabai that she should not indulge into such things, but there was no effect of this advise on Rekhabai. The deceased Rekhabai and Godavaribai had been on pilgrimage alongwith several villagers. Both, the accused No.1 and Rekhabai used to remain in contact on cell phone. She tried to convince Rekhabai that she should not indulge into such things, but there was no effect of this advise on Rekhabai. The deceased Rekhabai and Godavaribai had been on pilgrimage alongwith several villagers. During this period, Rekhabai came in contact with one Ramesh Dhanaji Ingale. They started maintaining contact on cell phone and this intimacy developed into illicit relationship, which was not liked by accused No.1 Maroti. Though Maroti objected, deceased continued her relationship with Ramesh Dhanaji Ingale. Accused No.1 Maroti said to Rekhabai that if he would see Ramesh in the house of Rekhabai, he would kill Ramesh, to which Rekhabai replied that Maroti is not her husband and she would not follow his instructions. The witness further deposed that on 28th July, 2009, she received phone call from Ramesh on her cell phone at about 4.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. She had put her cell phone on speaker mode and handed over the same to Rekhabai. She heard Ramesh Chavan informing Rekhabai that he would visit her house at 9.00 p.m. for sleeping with her and she should drive her husband out. Accordingly, Rekhabai asked her husband to go to some other village. At the same time, Rekhabai received phone call from Maroti, accused No.1. She informed Maroti that Ramesh Chavan is visiting her house for sleeping there. Witness deposed that Rekhabai narrated her that along with accused No. 1, accused No.2 Ashok Ingale also warned her that she should not allow Ramesh in her house. Thereafter, Rekhabai went to bed which was kept in her drawing room, known as "Baithak". After finishing dinner, Godavaribai was waiting for her husband. At about 10.00 p.m. Godavaribai went towards the Baithak of Rekhabai for easing. At that time Ramesh Dhanaji Chavan along with his friend Maroti Lalu Yelge, entered the house of Rekhabai. Rekhabai had pushed the door of her house. At the same time, Maroti Mariba Ingale and Ashok Digambar Ingale, accused Nos. 1 and 2, entered the house of Rekhabai by pushing the door. The light in the room was on. At that time Maroti, accused No. 1 said that "Saleho Atta Sapadle". Maroti took out knife from right side pocket of his trouser and stabbed Rekhabai in her abdomen. Rekhabai fell on the ground from the cot. 1 and 2, entered the house of Rekhabai by pushing the door. The light in the room was on. At that time Maroti, accused No. 1 said that "Saleho Atta Sapadle". Maroti took out knife from right side pocket of his trouser and stabbed Rekhabai in her abdomen. Rekhabai fell on the ground from the cot. The accused No. 1 Maroti inflicted second blow of knife on the abdomen of Ramesh. Maroti Lalu Yelge, friend of Ramesh, escaped from the clutches of accused and ran away. Then the accused left the place. Thereafter the witness entered the house and saw that Rekhabai was badly injured and blood was oozing from the injury. Her husband and their servant Pandu reached the spot. Rekhabai was taken to Government Hospital in auto rickshaw. She was unconscious. The compounder present in the hospital declared Rekhabai dead. During her cross-examination, the witness deposed that though Rekhabai and accused No. 1 Maroti were maintaining illicit relations since last 2 to 3 years, her brother in law, Ganeshrao did not lodge any complaint in the police station. Husband of deceased Rekhabai was not aware about the illicit relations between accused No.1 and Rekhabai. Husband of Godavaribai was also not aware about the same. The witness stated that she had not disclosed about these relations to anybody. Certain questions were asked on the aspect of delay in lodging the first information report to Godavaribai. Regarding the spot of incident, the witness deposed that she was standing in front of court yard of her house. She admitted that there was no relation between accused No. 2 Ashok and Rekhabai but Ashok was having relations with accused No.1 Maroti and Ramesh Chavan. The witness stated that she used to listen to conversation between Rekhabai and accused No.1 Maruti, on cell phone. She stated that she had no grudge against both the accused persons but had sympathy for Rekhabai. The witness vehemently stated that she was present on the spot at the relevant time. 10. PW-9 is Ramesh Dhanaji Chavan, who happens to be injured eye witness according to the prosecution. This witness was serving as driver on the tempo of Balaji Gaikwad, resident of village Chandola. Along with Rekhabai, he had also gone on pilgrimage. He deposed that Rekhabai tried to come closer to him during that trip and asked for his cell number. PW-9 is Ramesh Dhanaji Chavan, who happens to be injured eye witness according to the prosecution. This witness was serving as driver on the tempo of Balaji Gaikwad, resident of village Chandola. Along with Rekhabai, he had also gone on pilgrimage. He deposed that Rekhabai tried to come closer to him during that trip and asked for his cell number. She had written his cell number on a piece of paper. Intermittently, she used to talk with this witness and invite him at her residence. The witness stated that Rekhabai stated that she was in love with him. On this, the witness expressed apprehension that Rekhabai was already involved in affair with Maroti Ingale and whether Maroti would tolerate such relationship. Rekhabai replied that Maroti Ingale is not her husband to take any objection. According to the witness, Rekhabai encouraged him to maintain relations with her. The invitation of Rekhabai continued. On 28th July, 2009 he had been to house of Rekhabai at 10.00 p.m. along with his friend Maroti Yelge. Two children of Rekhabai were sleeping on a separate cot. The witness was chitchatting with Rekhabai, at that time accused No.1 Maroti Ingale and accused No. 2 Ashok Ingale arrived there. Maroti abused, looking at both of them by saying "Saleho Tumhi Atta Gathale". Soon thereafter Maroti Ingale took out knife from right side pocket of his trouser. He stabbed Rekhabai on her abdomen with that knife. Rekhabai fell on the ground from the cot. When the witness tried to catch hold of Maroti, Ashok, coaccused pounced on him, due to which Maroti could assault with the same knife on the witness. Maroti inflicted injury on left ribs of the witness with the said knife. Maroti Lalu Yelge who was there, escaped from the clutches of both the accused. The witness was taken to Chandola Tanda by Hanmant Hulgunde, who carried him to Government Hospital Mukhed alongwith his parents. He was treated at the hospital. Thereafter he was taken to Nanded in an Ambulance and was treated there by the medical officer. His statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Naigaon on 23rd September, 2009. He signed on the said statement. The said statement was shown to the witness. He identified muddemal articles before the Court. He was treated at the hospital. Thereafter he was taken to Nanded in an Ambulance and was treated there by the medical officer. His statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Naigaon on 23rd September, 2009. He signed on the said statement. The said statement was shown to the witness. He identified muddemal articles before the Court. During cross examination the witness stated that prior to the incident in question he had no occasion to talk with husband of Godavaribai and husband of Rekhabai. He had no occasion to talk to Godavaribai. Prior to the incident, he did not meet Maroti Ingale and was not acquainted with him. On the incident in question, the witness deposed that Rekhabai and he himself were talking with each other for near-about ten minutes. He was sitting on one cot, Maroti Yelge on another cot in that room and Rekhabai was sitting on different cot, which was placed in front of the cot on which the witness was sitting. Door of Baithak (drawing room) was having only one plank. The witness deposed that when the accused No.1 Maroti entered Baithak room, Rekhabai was sitting on her cot. When Rekhabai was stabbed by knife, blood started oozing from injury. That knife was smeared with blood of Rekhabai. When accused No.1 Maroti stabbed Rekhabai, witness tried to catch hold of him. He also tried to catch hold of Maroti after Rekhabai fell on the ground. He admitted before the Court that he did not try to catch hold of accused No.1 before he stabbed Rekhabai. He was not in a position to make statement as to in what manner accused No.1 inflicted blow on Rekhabai, whether by raising hands with knife above his head or simply pierced in the stomach. When Maroti stabbed Rekhabai, Maroti Yelge was present in the room, but thereafter he ran away. House of Hanmant Hungunde is at a distance of five minutes. In the cross examination the witness further deposed that accused No. 2 Ashok tried to grab him with his both hands from behind of witness, which facilitated the accused No. 1 to assault him. 11. The next eye witness is Maroti Lalu Yelge, PW-13. He deposed before the Court that after PW-9 Ramesh Chavan returned from pilgrimage, he disclosed that Rekhabai expressed her love for Ramesh and she has invited Ramesh to her house. 11. The next eye witness is Maroti Lalu Yelge, PW-13. He deposed before the Court that after PW-9 Ramesh Chavan returned from pilgrimage, he disclosed that Rekhabai expressed her love for Ramesh and she has invited Ramesh to her house. She had stated that she will warn Maroti Ingale not to visit her house. The witness warned Ramesh Chavan that Maroti Ingale has illicit relations with Rekhabai since last 2 to 3 years and he should not involve himself in the affair. The witness admits that he had been to the house of Rekhabai along with PW-9 Ramesh Chavan on 28th July, 2009. While they were sitting, accused Maroti Ingale and Ashok Ingale entered the room of Rekhabai. Maroti Ingale was looking in angry mood when he saw deceased Rekhabai and Ramesh Chavan together. Then he uttered that "Saleho Ataa Sapadle." Soon after Maroti Ingale took out a knife from right side pocket of his trouser and trusted it into abdomen of Rekhabai, due to which she fell down on the floor from the cot. Ramesh Chavan tried to catch hold of Maroti Ingale but Ashok Ingale caught hold of Ramesh. Then Maroti Ingale tried to inflict blow of knife on the stomach of Ramesh Chavan, he missed it but blow landed on the left rib of Ramesh Chavan. The witness claims to have heard shouting of Godavaribai. The injured was taken to the hospital. The witness has identified the accused persons who were sitting in the Court Hall. During cross-examination the witness admitted that there was illicit relation between Rekhabai and Ramesh Chavan. The intimacy developed after both of them were part of a pilgrimage tour. 12. PW-14 is Dr. Bhupal Shelke. He was serving as medical officer at Sub-District Hospital, Mukhed. On 28th July, 2009 at about 11.05 Ramesh Chavan was brought to the hospital by 2-3 persons. He treated Ramesh Chavan and issued injury certificate (Exhibit 109) on 18th August, 2009 on the basis of M.L.C. Register. According to the medical officer, injury No. 1 (Exhibit 109) must have been caused by article "F" i.e. knife. It was a grievous injury. If immediate treatment was not given to Ramesh, it would have proved fatal. He treated Ramesh Chavan and issued injury certificate (Exhibit 109) on 18th August, 2009 on the basis of M.L.C. Register. According to the medical officer, injury No. 1 (Exhibit 109) must have been caused by article "F" i.e. knife. It was a grievous injury. If immediate treatment was not given to Ramesh, it would have proved fatal. During cross-examination the witness admitted that in extract of M.L.C. Register (Exhibit 112) while mentioning measurement of injury No. 1, he has overwritten over digit "1" and mentioned it as "0.5" c.m. According to witness 0.5 c.m. is width of the injury, 3 c.m. is length and 2 c.m. is depth of that injury. The witness stated that he had not described the injury No.1 in Exhibit 109 to be fatal one. But in another breath, the witness states that it is not correct to say that injury No.1 in Exhibit 109 was not fatal. The Court had put several questions to this witness, as Court questions. We would reproduce following questions and answers, which are very relevant: "Question: What was the distance in between injury No. 1 in Exh. 109 and left lung of Ramesh Dhanaji Chavan? Answer: That injury may touch or may be in the lung. Question: For how many times MLC case is registered in case of same injury pertaining to the same victim? Answer: Only once. Question: Do you agree with my proposition that report Exh. 114 particularly para No. 1 & 5 are falsely prepared by your staff? Answer: I do agree." 13. PW-16 is Dr. Ramrao Muneshwar. He was medical officer at primary health center, Pethwadaj. He had been to primary health center Chandola on 29th July, 2009 about 2.00 p.m. He had conducted post mortem of deceased Rekhabai. The post mortem notes are at Exhibit 125. The witness deposed that there was no injury to internal genital. The doctor found following external injuries on the dead body: "1) Stab injury of size 5 X 5 X 1 c.m. in left hypocondrion region near to mid line. 2) Incised wound on left shoulder size 4 X 11/2 c.m. in length and width." There was no evidence of bruises according to the medical officer. Abdomenal walls were normal in texture from outside. Peritoneum was congested. According to him, injury No. 1 in column No. 17 of postmortem report Exhibit 125 was fatal injury. 2) Incised wound on left shoulder size 4 X 11/2 c.m. in length and width." There was no evidence of bruises according to the medical officer. Abdomenal walls were normal in texture from outside. Peritoneum was congested. According to him, injury No. 1 in column No. 17 of postmortem report Exhibit 125 was fatal injury. Death may be sudden due to stab injury and due to causing neuorgenic shock according to the medical officer. During the cross examination, the witness admitted that he had not described the depth of stab injury. 14. These are material witnesses whose evidence was recorded by the prosecution in support of their case. 15. PW-1 Venkat Narayan Gaikwad was panch regarding seizure of clothes on the person of the deceased. He identified the clothes and proved panchnama Exhibit 37. 16. PW-2 is Vishwambhar Anandrao Gaikwad, who was panch regarding panchnama of blood stained saree of PW-8 Godavaribai. 17. PW-3 is Shivling Bapurao Naik. He was panch for inquest panchnama of deceased Rekhabai. According to the witness there was one injury above umbilical area of dead body of Rekhabai. Intestine was protruding out of the wound according to the witness. PW-4 Hanmant babarao Hungunde was driver of tempo. 18. PW-5 is Ramsingh Chander Rathod, who is a panch of seizure of clothes on the person of Ramesh Chavan. PW-6 is Ajay Ramchandra Patil. He deposed that he does not know anything about the relationship of accused and Rekhabai. According to the witness, at a distance of two feet from the room there were blood stains on the floor. 19. PW-7 is Padmakar Ramrao Gaikwad, who supports the prosecution case in respect of illicit relations of Rekhabai with accused Maroti. PW-10 is Maroti Nagarao Pargewar, Head Constable. He carried muddemal articles to Forensic Lab. 20. PW-11 is Kondiba Maroti Ingole. He was panch of seizure of clothes from the person of accused Maroti on 31st July, 2009. PW12 is Ganesh Shankar Mathpati, who was witness to the disclosure of recovery of knife at the instance of accused Maroti, from the dilapidated godown of Ramesh Gaikwad. 21. PW-15 is Sheshrao Lolape. He was serving as circle inspector at village Chandola. He had given some details in respect of the location. 22. PW-17 is Govind Vithalrao Boinwad, Police Sub Inspector. 21. PW-15 is Sheshrao Lolape. He was serving as circle inspector at village Chandola. He had given some details in respect of the location. 22. PW-17 is Govind Vithalrao Boinwad, Police Sub Inspector. He has deposed in favour of the prosecution and narrated details in respect of the investigation carried out by him. He proved spot panchnama, seizure of clothes panchnama, inquest panchnama. 23. Shri, Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2011, Maroti Ingale, submits that so called eye witnesses had no occasion to witness the incident. The blood had fallen outside the room of Rekhabai, therefore, spot of incident is not room of Rekhabai and the incident never took place in the room of Rekhabai, as narrated by the eye witnesses. It has come on record that Maroti was having love affair with the deceased. There was no question of Maroti assaulting, inflicting serious blow on the deceased Rekhabai. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of persons who are immediate neighbours of Rekhabai, does not support the prosecution case. The husband of Godavaribai, who was material witness, was not examined by the prosecution. The case is arising out of caste feud. There was delay of nine hours in recording statement of Godavaribai. The learned counsel submitted that it is surprising that PW-9 Ramesh Chavan and PW-13 Maroti Yelge did not try to rescue Rekhabai when she was being assaulted. In the alternative, the learned counsel submitted that if the prosecution case is to be believed, then conviction awarded against accused Maroti for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, deserves to be converted. It is a case of single blow without any premeditation. According to the learned counsel when Maroti Ingale saw Ramesh Chavan in the room of deceased Rekhabai, it was but natural that he suddenly got provoked and due to which he might have inflicted the blow. 24. Shri. Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2011, Ashok Ingale, submitted that order of conviction and sentence awarded against Ingale for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. In the facts of the case, the prosecution failed to establish common intention of Ashok, accused No. 2, to commit murder of Rekhabai. In the facts of the case, the prosecution failed to establish common intention of Ashok, accused No. 2, to commit murder of Rekhabai. He had no motive to commit crime, neither he had any animus against Rekhabai. He had accompanied the accused No. 1 as there was Bhavki relations interse. The prosecution failed to establish that there was prior meeting of the accused before the incident. Ashok was not knowing whether Maroti was intending to give serious blow on the person of Rekhabai. Ashok was even not aware whether Maroti was carrying knife with him. 25. The learned A.P.P. submitted that motive is hidden in the mind of the culprits. The prosecution case is reliable. There are eye witnesses to the incident. Testimony of the injured eye witness cannot be discarded. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent and reliable. The doctors have described that injury caused to Rekhabai was sufficient to cause her death. According to learned A.P.P., the intestine of Rekhabai had come out. Learned A.P.P. submitted that incident took place in Baithak room of Rekhabai, as blood stains were found in Baithak room. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of eye witnesses. It was submitted that prosecution case be accepted and the Appeals be dismissed. 26. We have gone through the entire original record placed before us. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. 27. It is unfortunate case that between the two, with whom Rekhabai was maintaining relations, one took objection and assaulted another and also assaulted Rekhabai, due to which she lost her life. From the evidence on record, we are not convinced to hold that accused No. 1 Maroti had intention to cause death of deceased Rekhabai or to cause such bodily injuries which would likely to endanger life of Rekhabai, neither accused No. 1 Maroti had decided and reached the spot armed with deadly weapon to cause injuries to the injured eye witness PW-9 Ramesh Chavan, with whom deceased Rekhabai had started developing her illicit relations. 28. Inspite of the fact that Rekhabai was married and her husband was surviving, she was maintaining relations with accused No. 1 and the injured eye witness. The reason emerging from the record is that her husband was little timid by temperament. Rekhabai was blessed with two children from her husband. 28. Inspite of the fact that Rekhabai was married and her husband was surviving, she was maintaining relations with accused No. 1 and the injured eye witness. The reason emerging from the record is that her husband was little timid by temperament. Rekhabai was blessed with two children from her husband. Rekhabai's husband married for the second time, as his first wife expired. From first wife, husband of Rekhabai had four children. 29. The evidence suggests that since last 23 years prior to the incident, Rekhabai was maintaining illicit relations with accused No. 1. After PW-9 Ramesh Chavan came in contact with Rekhabai during pilgrimage, they both started coming closer. Rekhabai used to invite Ramesh to her house. They had frequent talk on telephone, which probably, was not liked by accused No. 1 Maroti. PW-9 Ramesh Chavan was apprehensive that Maroti would not like his relationship with Rekhabai, but deceased Rekhabai encouraged Ramesh saying that Maroti is not her husband to take objections. 30. In respect of the incident in question, there is sufficient evidence on record that PW-9 Ramesh, injured eye witness, was present in the room along with PW-13 Maroti Yelge. Both the accused persons entered the room of deceased Rekhabai. Light in the room was on. Godavaribai, closely related to deceased Rekhabai was residing just adjacent to the house of Rekhabai. She had come out to ease herself. No sooner accused entered the room, they saw Rekhabai chitchatting with PW-9 Ramesh Chavan. It was natural for accused No. 1 Maroti to get agitated and provoked after seeing both of them intimately talking with each other. He abused them and soon thereafter took out knife from his pocket and inflicted blow on the person of deceased Rekhabai. Eye witnesses have not referred to the second injury noticed on the person of deceased Rekhabai, to have been caused by the accused No. 1. Second injury was to the shoulder, which was noticed by the medical officer during postmortem examination. Soon thereafter Rekhabai fell down, blood started oozing from the injury. Record reveals that her intestine had come out, and in the same sequence of the event, the accused No. 1 Maroti assaulted PW-9 Ramesh Chavan. At that moment, the co-accused, accused No. 2 Ashok grabed PW-9 from behind, due to which accused No. 1 could inflict the blow on the person of PW9 Ramesh Chavan. 31. Record reveals that her intestine had come out, and in the same sequence of the event, the accused No. 1 Maroti assaulted PW-9 Ramesh Chavan. At that moment, the co-accused, accused No. 2 Ashok grabed PW-9 from behind, due to which accused No. 1 could inflict the blow on the person of PW9 Ramesh Chavan. 31. The defence submitted that evidence of eye witnesses was not believable. We are not convinced to accept the submissions. There is no reason for PW-9 Ramesh Chavan, injured eye witness, to depose falsely. His evidence corroborates the medical evidence. He has not exaggerated the incident. His presence cannot be denied on the spot. Therefore, his testimony is required to be accepted. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-13 Maroti Yelge, who had gone alongwith Ramesh on the spot. Evidence of PW-8 Godavaribai is also reliable, as she was natural witness, who was residing close by. 32. It was submitted on behalf of the defence that eye witnesses did not try to intervene and avoid the blow which was inflicted by accused No.1 on the person of the deceased Rekhabai. Considering the suddenness of the incident, it was not possible for anybody there to avoid, by interfering, the infliction of blow by accused No.1 on the person of deceased Rekhabai. It cannot be forgotten that accused No.1 was armed with knife. He had carried that knife with him in his pocket. Whether he had come there with an intention to assault deceased Rekhabai, is a matter of appreciation but no sooner he saw PW-9 Ramesh and deceased Rekhabai talking with each other, he must have certainly got enraged and provoked, as their closeness was matter of concern for accused No.1. After accused No.1 abused both of them, he took out a knife and then assaulted on the person of deceased Rekhabai. Accused No.1 had opportunity to inflict more blows on the person of the deceased, but he did not do so. 33. We appreciate that merely because single blow is inflicted on the person, one is not entitled to claim any benefit merely because he or she died due to infliction of blow. It all depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 34. Role played by accused No. 2 Ashok has to be minutely considered. 33. We appreciate that merely because single blow is inflicted on the person, one is not entitled to claim any benefit merely because he or she died due to infliction of blow. It all depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 34. Role played by accused No. 2 Ashok has to be minutely considered. There is nothing on record to show that he was aware that accused No. 1 was carrying knife with him. He had no relations with Rekhabai, neither he has any animus against both, Rekhabai and Ramesh. Both the accused were from one Bhavki, related interse. On the request of accused No.1, it seems that accused No.2 accompanied him. The prosecution evidence does not clearly suggests that accused No.2 had grabbed PW-9 Ramesh Chavan, when accused No.1 assaulted Rekhabai. Considering in its entirety, we are not convinced to hold that accused No. 2 had shared common intention with accused No.1 to assault deceased Rekhabai and cause fatal injuries. But at the same time, when accused No.1 was to inflict blow on the person of PW-9 Ramesh, accused No.2 had grabbed him from behind. The act of accused No.2 in grabbing PW-9 Ramesh Chavan facilitated Maroti, accused No.1 to inflict serious injury on the person of PW-9 Ramesh Chavan. 35. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence brought on record, we would, therefore have to appreciate the evidence by considering the motive behind commission of crime, the intentions of the parties and their peculiar relationship. 36. The medical evidence has supported the prosecution case. Both, the deceased Rekhabai and PW-9 Ramesh Chavan suffered serious injuries. It is unfortunate that Rekhabai died due to assault inflicted by accused No.1. The question now, is, as to what offence the accused have committed. 37. Considering the provisions of Section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code and the evidence brought on record, we are of the view that accused No. 1 shall be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 38. Accused No. 2 Ashok Ingale cannot be held guilty for act of accused No. 1 in causing injury to Rekhabai, but accused No. 2 certainly could be held guilty with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in causing injuries to PW-9 Ramesh Chavan. 39. 38. Accused No. 2 Ashok Ingale cannot be held guilty for act of accused No. 1 in causing injury to Rekhabai, but accused No. 2 certainly could be held guilty with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in causing injuries to PW-9 Ramesh Chavan. 39. Shri Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2011, in support of his submissions regarding appreciation of evidence, has placed reliance on following reported Judgments: (1) Thulia Kali vs. The State of T.N., A.I.R. 1973 Supreme Court, 501, (2) Nilesh Naik @ Mangueshkar s/o late Vishwanath Mangueshkar vs. State of Goa, 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 2062. 40. Shri. Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2011, has placed reliance on the following reported Judgments: (1) Pandurang and others vs. State of Hyderabad, (S) A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 216 (Vol. 42, C.N. 37), (2) Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli and another vs. State of Bombay, (S) A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 287 (Vol. 42 C.N. 51), (3) Vadivelu Thevar : Chinniah Servai vs. State of Madras, 1957 DGLS (Soft.) 39. 41. The learned A.P.P. has placed reliance on the following reported Judgments on the point of appreciation of evidence and the application of provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: (1) Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1958 Supreme Court, 465(1) : [2007 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 33], (2) Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahiman Patel and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 : [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2940 (S.C.)], (3) Onkar and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012)2 Supreme Court Cases 273 : [2012 ALL MR (Cri) 706 (S.C.)]. 42. We have perused the Judgments, cited supra. 43. We had enquired from learned counsel Shri. Choudhari, regarding payment of compensation to two children of deceased Rekhabai, who were minor at the time of incident. We find that this is a fit case where fine is required to be imposed on accused No.1 Maroti Ingale and the same shall be directed to be paid as compensation to the two children of deceased Rekahabai in accordance with the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ORDER 1. Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2011 are partly allowed. 2. ORDER 1. Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2011 are partly allowed. 2. The Judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded against accused No. 1 Maroti S/o Mariba Ingale and accused No. 2 Ashok S/o Digambar Ingale for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. 3. The offence committed by the accused No. 1 Maroti Mariba Ingale is converted and he is convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304 II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. The accused No. 2 Ashok Digambar Ingale is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. The order of conviction awarded against both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is maintained. However, period of sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to seven years. The appellants shall pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand), each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 6. Rest of the order of conviction and sentence is maintained. 7. From the amount of fine recovered from accused No. 1, compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be paid equally to the two children of Rekhabai (deceased). The same may be kept in fixed deposit and paid with interest to the children on they attaining majority. 8. Substantive sentences awarded against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall run concurrently. 9. The appellants shall be entitled to relief of set off as prescribed under the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Ordered accordingly.