Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—The present appeal, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 15.01.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Surat in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2006 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and is inter alia sentenced to life imprisonment and is ordered to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.09.2005, a complaint was lodged by brother of the deceased that at around 10.45 pm when he was sitting on the sit-out (otla), a boy from his street came running to him and informed him that someone had assaulted the victim- Ishwarbhai and that considerable amount of blood was oozing out of his neck and other parts of the body and that the victim was lying on the road. Hearing this the complainant, his sister-in-law and other neighbours from the street rushed to the scene of offence which was near Taskend Hotel, Rander, Surat where other people had already gathered. It is the say of the complainant that he saw his elder brother – Ishwarbhai lying in a pool of blood and therefore immediately with the help of people around he took the victim to a hospital in an autorickshaw. 2.1 It is the say of the complainant in the complaint that in the autorickshaw, on the way to the hospital, the complainant asked about the person who had assaulted the victim to which he had replied that when the victim was standing near Taskend Hotel at around 10.30 pm, the accused-Hitesh alias Chucho Mohanbhai Randeria who was already standing there came near the victim and took out a knife from the rear portion of his pant and inflicted blows on his heart, neck and other parts of the body. The complainant states in the complaint that the victim further told him that after being inflicted with the blows, the victim started running for help but the accused-appellant ran behind him and inflicted blows on him. The victim fell on the ground and started shouting for help. The accused ran away from the scene of offence. 2.2 It is the say of the complainant that the victim was thereafter taken to Dr. Bakul Upadhyay’s hospital wherefrom he was referred to another hospital. The victim fell on the ground and started shouting for help. The accused ran away from the scene of offence. 2.2 It is the say of the complainant that the victim was thereafter taken to Dr. Bakul Upadhyay’s hospital wherefrom he was referred to another hospital. The victim was thereafter taken to Ashaktashram hospital where during the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 2.3 To sustain its case, the prosecution adduced following oral evidence : (i) P.W. 1 – Thakor Jerambhai Kosambiya Ex. 12 (ii) P.W. - 2 – Bhavnaben Ishwar Kosambiya Ex. 14 (iii) P.W. 3 – Ali mohammad Hans Ex. 15 (iv) P.W. 4 – Mohammad Asif Suleman Hans Ex. 16 (v) P.W. 5 – Pravinbhai Rana Ex. 18 (vi) P.W. 6 – Dharmeshbhai Bariya Ex. 20 (vii) P.W. 7 – Dr. Lavleshkukmar Sinha Ex. 21 (viii) P.W. 8 – Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel Ex. 25 2.4 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents: (i) Inquest Panchnama Ex. 7 (ii) Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 8 (iii) Panchnama of clothes of deceased Ex. 9 (iv) Panchnam of body condition of accused Ex. 10 (v) Original Complaint Ex. 13 (vi) Panchnama of clothes of deceased Ex. 17 (vii) Discovery panchnama Ex. 19 (viii) Post Mortem report Ex. 22 (ix) Cause of Death Certificate Ex. 23 (x) Certificate of Ashaktashram hospital Ex. 24 (xi) Index Ex. 26 (xii) Report written to FSL Ex. 27 (xiii) Muddamal Dispatch letter Ex. 28 (xiv) Receipt by FSL Ex. 29 (xv) FSL Report Ex. 30 (xvi) Serological Report Ex. 31 (xvii) Report Ex. 32 2.5 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. Buddhbhatti, learned advocate appearing for the accused - appellant submitted that there are many lacunae in the prosecution case and that there is no cogent and convincing fact on record to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged offence. He submitted that in the present case the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of oral dying declaration. 3.1 Mr. Buddhbhatti, learned advocate appearing for the accused - appellant submitted that there are many lacunae in the prosecution case and that there is no cogent and convincing fact on record to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged offence. He submitted that in the present case the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of oral dying declaration. 3.1 Mr. Buddhbhatti has contended that the two witnesses examined by the prosecution being the brother and wife of the deceased are interested witnesses and they have wrongly involved the appellant in the offence. He further contended that the prosecution has not examined Dr. Bakul Upadhyaya who had given him first aid, the street boy who had informed the complainant or the rickshaw driver in whose rickshaw the victim was taken to hospital. He submitted that neither their statements were recorded by the police authorities nor were they examined by the prosecution. 3.2 Mr. Buddhbhatti further submitted that the trial Court has convicted the appellant relying only on the oral dying declaration and in absence of such declaration, there is no single evidence against the present appellant and therefore the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant relying on the said sole evidence. 3.3 Mr. Buddhbhatti has also contended that looking to the number of injuries on the body of the deceased, it is not possible for a single person to inflict so many stabs on a person at a public place. He submitted that therefore the involvement of another person cannot be ruled out and thus the evidence of interested witnesses implicating the name of only the accused is doubtful. 3.4 Mr. Buddhbhatti also submitted that looking to injuries no. 1 to 10 which are quite serious in nature, it is highly improbable that the victim could have spoken anything as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. He submitted that the deceased did not state anything to the doctor regarding the incident. 3.5 Mr. Buddhbhatti has further submitted that infact the appellant did not volunteer for alleged discovery of knife and that a false story was cooked up against the appellant. He submitted that the panchas for discovery of muddamal weapon have turned hostile. 3.6 Mr. He submitted that the deceased did not state anything to the doctor regarding the incident. 3.5 Mr. Buddhbhatti has further submitted that infact the appellant did not volunteer for alleged discovery of knife and that a false story was cooked up against the appellant. He submitted that the panchas for discovery of muddamal weapon have turned hostile. 3.6 Mr. Buddhbhatti submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by way of cogent and trustworthy evidence and therefore benefit of doubt is required to be granted to the accused-appellant. 4. Ms. Chetna M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned judgement and order and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the intention and motive on the part of the accused-appellant has been proved by the prosecution. She submitted that looking to the evidence on record, more particularly evidence of P.W. 1, 2, 7 & 8 and the reasonings adopted by the trial Court, no interference is called for in the impugned judgement. 4.1 Ms. Shah further submitted that looking to the number of brutal injuries on the person of the deceased which ultimately proved to be fatal, the accused-appellant does not deserve any relief from this Court. 5. We have perused the records of the case. P.W. 1 is the complainant who is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 1 vide his testimony at Ex. 12 has stated that he had returned home from work at around 10.00 pm and after having dinner when he was sitting on the sit-out (otla), a boy from his street came running to him and informed him that considerable amount of blood was oozing out of the neck and other parts of the body of the victim and that the victim is lying on the road near Tashkend Hotel. Hearing this, P.W. 1, his sister-in-law (P.W. 2) and other neighbours from the street rushed to the scene of offence where other people had already gathered. This witness has deposed that he saw his elder brother – Ishwar standing with various injuries on his body. He has deposed that the victim could speak at that time and that the victim had informed this witness that while the victim was standing at a paan shop, the accused-appellant came from behind and inflicted blows with a knife. This witness has deposed that he saw his elder brother – Ishwar standing with various injuries on his body. He has deposed that the victim could speak at that time and that the victim had informed this witness that while the victim was standing at a paan shop, the accused-appellant came from behind and inflicted blows with a knife. Thereafter, with the help of people around P.W. 1 took the victim to Dr. Bakul’s hospital in an autorickshaw. P.W. 1 further submitted that from Dr. Bakul Upadhyay’s hospital the victim was taken to Ashaktashram Hospital where he expired during the course of treatment. He has identified the accused in the court. 5.1 P.W. 1 was cross examined at length by the prosecution. In his cross examination he has narrated that the victim was lying in a pool of blood but he slowly stood up on seeing his brother and wife. He has stated in the cross that he did not note the rickshaw number but knew the driver. He has stated that the police had recorded the statement of the rickshaw driver. 5.2 P.W. 2 – Bhavnaben Ishwarbhai Kosambiya who is the widow of the deceased has supported the case of the prosecution. She has stated that when she along with P.W. 1 and the neighbours reached the scene of offence, she saw the victim coming towards them in a very bad state. She has stated that on being asked as to who assaulted him, the victim gave the name of accused-appellant. She has stated that the victim was thereafter taken to hospital in an autorickshaw. She has identified the accused in the court. 5.3 In her cross-examination, P.W. 2 has denied that she has wrongly named the accused-appellant in the entire case. She has denied the suggestion that she did not mention in her statement before the police that she saw the accusedappellant fleeing from the scene of offence. 5.4 P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 & P.W. 6 are the panch witnesses who have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. 5.5 P.W. 7 – Dr. Lavleshkumar Sinha is the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem report has stated in his deposition that the death was caused due to shock due to haemorrhage as a result of stab injuries to lungs, heart and liver. 5.5 P.W. 7 – Dr. Lavleshkumar Sinha is the Medical Officer who performed the post mortem report has stated in his deposition that the death was caused due to shock due to haemorrhage as a result of stab injuries to lungs, heart and liver. He has stated that the stab wounds and incise wounds found on the body of the deceased were possible by way of knife. On seeing the muddamal knife he has admitted that the wounds on the body of the deceased could be possible by use of such weapon. 6. We have also perused the medical evidence which includes the post mortem report. The post mortem report mentions the nature of injuries in column 17as under: “17. (1) Incised wound present over L side, outer aspect of face of sixe 3x1.5 cm, 0.5 cm, 0.5 cm a below L ear losurle horizontal. (2) Multiple abrasion present over L side forehead in an area of 7 x 6 cm of size varming from 2 x 0.5 cm to 1 x 0.2 cm. (3) Incised wound present over R parictal ugrion of head of size 4 x 0.5 cm, sealp tissue deep, horizontal situated 9 cm above R ear & 1 cm R to midline. (4) Lucisid wound present over L occipital nagior of head of size 1 0.5 cm, sealp tissue deep, norlical situated 13 cm baeur above L ear and 10 cm L to mid line. (5) Incised wound present on top of R shoulder vertical of size 6 cm x 1.5 cm, muscle deep. (6) Stab wound present on R side chest of size 4 x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep oscique, situated 6 cm below strirocalalical ar joint and 2 cm R to midline, margins cleancut outer angle centre, inner blunt blood coming out from the wound on moremelf of body. (7) Incised wound present over L side of chest horizontal of size 5 x 2.5 cm stain deep, upper mangine slapped situated 7.5 cm below rtstroclavicular joint & 3 cm L to midline. (8) Stab wound present over outer & upper aspect of L side chest, oblique of size 5x1.5 cm x chest cavity deep situated above L nipple and 8 cm below top of L shoulder, lower angle. (8) Stab wound present over outer & upper aspect of L side chest, oblique of size 5x1.5 cm x chest cavity deep situated above L nipple and 8 cm below top of L shoulder, lower angle. (9) Incised wound present over baeue of R chest of size 4 x 1 cm x muscle deep situated 6 cm below nape of neck. (10) Incised wound present over baeue neck, horizontal of size 5 x 1 cm muscle deep in midline, 0.5 a below the hair line. (11) Incised wound present over beaue of neck 0.5 cm above the E & T injury no 10, horizontal of size 4 x 1 cm muscle deep. (12) Incised wound present over outer aspect beaue of R arm, oblique of size 12 cm x 905 cm size deep situated 10 cm below top of R dhamldegand 15 cm abone R elbow joint. (13) Grave abrasion present over outer aspect of R thigh of size 16 x 6 cm. (14) Abrasion present over front of R knee of size 3.5 x 3 cm. (15) Lacerated wound present over front of L knee of size 4 cm x 2 cm with margin irregular and antured. (16) Grave abrasion present over front of knee 1 cm below E & T injury no. 15 of size 8x4 cm. (17) Abrasion present over L side great toe of size 1x1 cm. (18) Abrasion present over L 2nd toe at bare of size 1x1 cm. Note : Above mentioned all incised & stab wounds are having margins clean cut. All abrasions are red in glove and fresh.” 6.1 Considering the aforesaid injuries, more particularly injuries no. 1 to 10 and the testimony of the Medical Officer, it is clear that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death of the victim. 7. As far as the veracity of the evidences of P.W. 1 & 2 is concerned, it is clear that P.W. 1 & 2 were in their house at around 10.45 pm when they received the information about the assault on victim – Ishwarbhai. We are of the view that keeping in mind the scene of offence and residence of both the witnesses, the presence of both the accused at the scene of offence at the time mentioned is quite natural. We are of the view that keeping in mind the scene of offence and residence of both the witnesses, the presence of both the accused at the scene of offence at the time mentioned is quite natural. It is quite natural that after hearing the news of assault on a family member, any person shall rush to the scene of offence and inquire about the matter as done by the witnesses in the present case. 7.1 Nothing is borne out from the cross-examination of these two witnesses so as to disregard or disbelieve their evidences. Learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to show that there was any reason for these witnesses to falsely implicate the accused-appellant. 8. On the other hand, the trial Court has also considered the motive and intention of the accused-appellant. The mensrea in the alleged offence has also be considered by the trial Court. It is borne out that the deceased was in an illicit relation with the accused’s mother and this led to an animosity and grudge in the mind of the accused-appellant towards the deceased. The vengeance and grudge was so grave that it led to the accused inflicting around 18 stabs upon the deceased. 9. The fact that has weighed with the Court is that the blood group of the blood stains as found on the clothes of the deceased, accused and muddamal weapon is ‘B’, as that of the deceased. Learned advocate for the appellant could not controvert this fact. 10. As far as the contention raised by learned advocate for the appellant regarding utterance of words even though the victim had been grievously injured is concerned, it is required to be noted that Dr. Lavleshlumar in his deposition has mentioned that even though such injuries were sustained by the victim, it is possible that the victim can speak coherently. There is no reason for this Court to ignore this possibility. It can happen that on being questioned about the offence and the culprit, the victim could account for the entire chain of events. Learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to persuade this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial Court in this regard. 11. It can happen that on being questioned about the offence and the culprit, the victim could account for the entire chain of events. Learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to persuade this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial Court in this regard. 11. Learned advocate for the appellant has tried to put forward a case that the appellant was in custody and infact he did not volunteer for alleged discovery of knife and thus a false story was cooked up against the appellant. It is submitted that the panchas therefore rightly turned hostile and on the basis of mere evidence of Investigating Officer the discovery was not established. We are not inclined to accept this submission in view of the decision of this Court in Vinugiri Motigiri vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (1) GLH 176 wherein the Court has clearly laid down the proposition of law that for discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, corroboration is not necessary and if the articles are discovered as stated by accused, the discovery is admissible in evidence on the deposition of police witnesses alone. Therefore, just because the panchas have turned hostile, the same will not make much difference as the finding of fact is such. 12. We are also not persuaded to accept the contention that there was a second person involved in the alleged offence. The trial Court has completely ruled out this theory because the defence could not point out any evidence which could suggest such a proposition. On an overall appreciation, re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence led before the trial Court in its entirety, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court. 13. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. The judgement and order dated 15.01.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fourth Fast Track Court, Surat in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2006 is confirmed. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellant may be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. * * * * *