Judgment K.J. Thaker, J.—The present appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 107/2006, whereby, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under sec. 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to undergo further S/I for one month. The appellant is also convicted under sec. 135 of the B.P. Act and sentenced to undergo S/I for one month and to pay a fine of Rs 100/-, in default, to undergo further S/I for seven days, which is impugned in this appeal. 2.1 The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the appellant wanted to have relation with Sonal, daughter of complainant Jenaji Bhikhaji Thakor, residing in the sim of village Longhnaj, but she refused to it and in the meantime, she got married. Thereafter, on 13.3.2006, at about 9.30 am in the morning, Kamuben wife of the complainant, his daughter Sonal and son went for shopping to village Longhnaj and when they were coming back at about 10.30 am, at that time, the appellant inflicted knife blows on Kamuben and Sonal on their vital organs of the bodies and caused serious injuries to them and both succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter the complaint was filed. 2.2 The appellant accused came to be arraigned for committing the murder and after the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 107/2006. 2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed the charge below Exh. 3 against the appellants for commission of the offence under section 302 of IPC read with sec. 135 of BP Act. The appellant -accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 To prove the case against the present appellant, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. PW-1 Sumanbhai Shivabhai Raval Ex. 6 2. PW-2 Jenaji Bhikhaji Thakor Ex. 11 3. PW-3 Govindji Jenaji Thakor Ex. 14 4. PW-4 Valaji Harchandji Thakor Ex. 15 5. PW-5 Narendra @ Manubhai Gandabhai Patel Ex.16 6. PW-6 Dashrathbhai Baldevdas Patel Ex. 18 7. 2.4 To prove the case against the present appellant, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. PW-1 Sumanbhai Shivabhai Raval Ex. 6 2. PW-2 Jenaji Bhikhaji Thakor Ex. 11 3. PW-3 Govindji Jenaji Thakor Ex. 14 4. PW-4 Valaji Harchandji Thakor Ex. 15 5. PW-5 Narendra @ Manubhai Gandabhai Patel Ex.16 6. PW-6 Dashrathbhai Baldevdas Patel Ex. 18 7. PW-7 Bharatsinh Jaydevsinh Zala Ex. 20 8. PW-8 Keshabhai Punjabhai Patel Ex. 22 9. PW-9 Mukeshkumar Bachubhai Vyas Ex. 28 10. PW-10 Kaushik Chandrakantbhai Zala Ex. 40 2.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documentary evidences so as to bring home the charges against the appellant-accused. 1. Panchnama of scene of offence place Ex. 7 2. Inquest panchnama Ex. 8 3. Panchnama of shirt of accused Ex. 9 4. Panchnama u/s. 27 Ex. 10 5. original complaint Ex. 12 6. Recovery panchnama of clothes of deadbody Ex.13 7. Map Ex. 19 8. Depute order Ex. 21 9. Report for offence Ex. 23 10. FSL Report Ex. 24 11. PM report Ex. 25-26 12. Letter addressed to Circle Inspector Ex. 27 13. Letter for statement under Section 164 of CrPC Ex.29 14. O/c of letter written to child witness Ex.31 15. Despatch nondh of muddamal Ex. 32 16. Receipt of FSL Ex.33 17. Letter of FSL Ex. 34 18. Report of FSL Ex. 35 19. Serological report Ex. 36 20. Notification Ex. 37 21. Case papers of CR No.I-25/06 of Langhnaj Ex.38. 3. Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the appellant-accused under sec. 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the appellant-accused has denied the case of the prosecution. 4. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 held the present appellant- original accused guilty of the charge levelled against him under sec. 302 of IPC and under section 135 of B.P. Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. B.L. Trivedi for the present appellant and Ms C.M. Shah learned APP for the respondent-State. 6. Mr. 302 of IPC and under section 135 of B.P. Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above. 5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. B.L. Trivedi for the present appellant and Ms C.M. Shah learned APP for the respondent-State. 6. Mr. Trivedi learned advocate appearing for the present appellant has tried to persuade this Court that the accused was arrested after 25 days and it is a case of sole eye witness which has been made the sole base for conviction by the learned trial Judge and the so-called eye witness is a tutored witness and has not seen the offence being committed. He has further submitted that the appellant has already undergone 7 years imprisonment and the offence, if at all, may said to be an offence under sec. 304 Part-I of IPC, and this Court should take up the view on this concept and the sentence undergone by the appellant may be treated as sentence awarded. 7. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Shah has strongly opposed the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the present appellant and has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material, in the form of oral and documentary evidence, produced before it and hence, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7.1 Learned APP has taken us through the record and the evidence of minor witness and submitted that the witness cannot be said to be a tutored witness. In his evidence, he has categorically stood to the cross-examination. He was even examined by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class under the provisions of sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. and he has withstood the cross-examination and nothing which would be helpful to the appellant is brought out in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses leave apart the minor child witness. There are no contradictions, not even minor. The motive has been established. The parents have married the deceased No. 1 Sonal to some other person which had angered the appellant. The FIR is given by Jinaji, who is the father of deceased No. 1 and husband of deceased No. 2. There are no contradictions, not even minor. The motive has been established. The parents have married the deceased No. 1 Sonal to some other person which had angered the appellant. The FIR is given by Jinaji, who is the father of deceased No. 1 and husband of deceased No. 2. 7.2 It is further contended that this is a case of brutal murder, and therefore, no leniency should be shown to the accused since the injuries are on the vital part of the body, hence, no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The complainant Jenaji Bhikhaji has very categorically mentioned that he came to know from witness Govind (his son) that Thakor Govaji Mafaji had inflicted knife blows to Kamuben and Sonal, and therefore, he and his son Govind had rushed to the place. Sonal was his daughter, and therefore, they were told by the son who is the eye witness examined by the police first by taking his statement under sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. He has been examined on oath at Ex. 14 and he has been made to understand that what is the importance of giving testimony in the court. In his evidence, in para-1 and 2, he has categorically mentioned that when he was coming back from the market, at that time, Govaji had asked his sister that do you want to go to your matrimonial home ? His sister conveyed that, yes, she wants to go to her matrimonial home, and why are you asking, and he has further mentioned that first blow of knife was given to his sister and then the mother and thereafter Govaji ran after him, and therefore, he ran away from the place of incident and came and told his father. He and his father came to the place of the incident where dead-body of his sister and mother were found. He had identified the clothes worn by the Govaji. He has even identified the knife. He identified Govaji. In the cross-examination taken by learned advocate Mr. H.D. Suthar, he has withstood the cross-examination. He has answered the question that he was tutored by the police in the negative. One Valaji, father-in-law of Sonal had come to take back her to matrimonial home and he had seen dead-bodies of Sonal and Sonal’s mother. He identified Govaji. In the cross-examination taken by learned advocate Mr. H.D. Suthar, he has withstood the cross-examination. He has answered the question that he was tutored by the police in the negative. One Valaji, father-in-law of Sonal had come to take back her to matrimonial home and he had seen dead-bodies of Sonal and Sonal’s mother. In his oral testimony, while withstood the cross-examination, has categorically mentioned that the injuries which are caused are with the sharp cutting object and possible with the object which has been recovered by the police. The FSL report also matches with the PM report and other aspect. 9. Having gone through the entire evidence oral as well as documentary, we are unable to persuade ourselves that it is a clear case of acquittal and the reason for the same is that the complaint was given by the father of the deceased No. 1 and husband of deceased No. 2. In our view, the reasonings given by the learned trial Judge are such which cannot be upturned. The learned trial Judge in Paras-20 and 21 of the judgment, has held that the circumstantial evidence complete the chain and the chain is so foolproof the reason being that there are blood marks on the clothes of the accused which are of the deceased. The deceased were mother and daughter, and therefore, the blood group would be the same, which is ‘A’- positive which are found on the shirt of the accused. The accused has tried to clarify about the blood stain on the shirt of the accused. Learned advocate for the appellant has tried to distinguish that what was the weapon used is said to be knife and what was found from the possession of the appellant is “chhara” (big knife). The medical evidence proves that the injuries which are caused are as follows: Col. No. 17: (1) A stab wound on right hand middle & front part of right wrist joint size 2 x ½ cm & muscle deep oblique in direct in upper and medium and lower and laterary. (2) Stab wound on 2cm above left iliae ereast obiave. Anterior – posteriory size 5 x 2 cm deep up to abdomen and omentum and intestine visible. (3) Stab wound on upper part of left lence joint size of 10 x 3cm bone deep transveree in nature. (2) Stab wound on 2cm above left iliae ereast obiave. Anterior – posteriory size 5 x 2 cm deep up to abdomen and omentum and intestine visible. (3) Stab wound on upper part of left lence joint size of 10 x 3cm bone deep transveree in nature. Directed from lateral to medial part of lt. Thigh. (4) 2 x 2 cm abrasion on front and lower part of lt. forearm. The above injuries are matching with the weapon which is seized from the place of the offence. We are unable to convince ourselves to take a different view then that is taken by the learned trial Judge. There is no probability also which would permit us to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. 10. We are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and we are of the view that no other conclusion except the one reached by the trial Court is possible in the instant case as the evidence on record stands. Therefore, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 11. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 107 of 2006 is confirmed. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. However, it is clarified that life would not be till last breath and his case may be considered by the appropriate authority.