Judgment R.P. Dholaria, J.—The appellant has, by way of preferring present appeal, challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi (hereinafter referred to as the learned Judge) in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2007 whereby the appellant accused has been held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and awarded sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and 6 months’ simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Judge has also imposed fine of Rs. 5000 (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo 1 year’s rigorous imprisonment. So far as offence under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act is concerned, the learned Judge has imposed fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo 1 month’s simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Filtering out unnecessary details, brief facts of the case may be stated as under: 2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of previous animosity arisen on the day of Diwali regarding lighting of fire-crackers, on 24.10.2006, at about 8:00p.m., present appellant along with accused Nos. 2 and 3 had come near the shop of one Gopal Babar in village Samdhiyala of Sayla Taluka and accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold the deceased Dhanjibhai Valabhai Rabari and accused No.1 inflicted a fatal knife blow to the deceased on his stomach which caused grievous injury to the deceased due to which he succumbed to the injuries within few hours. 2.2. The cousin brother of the deceased i.e. Aapabhai Lakhmanbhai, thereupon, lodged the first information before the Pradhuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot. As the incident was occurred within the jurisdiction of Sayla Police Station, the said FIR was transmitted to the Sayla Police Station. Thereupon, the investigation was carried out. The statements of various witnesses were recorded. Panchnamas were drawn. Postmortem of the dead-body was carried out. The muddamal articles recovered under various panchnamas were sent for analysis at Forensic Science Laboratory. As the incident was occurred within the jurisdiction of Sayla Police Station, the said FIR was transmitted to the Sayla Police Station. Thereupon, the investigation was carried out. The statements of various witnesses were recorded. Panchnamas were drawn. Postmortem of the dead-body was carried out. The muddamal articles recovered under various panchnamas were sent for analysis at Forensic Science Laboratory. The chargesheet was filed before the concerned Court. The case was committed for sessions trial. The charge was framed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi has rendered his judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.02.2008 in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2007 inter alia convicting the appellant herein and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and other sentences as narrated above with fine. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred present appeal. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the present appellant as well as other two accused vide Exh.3 that on account of ill-feeling with complainant Aapabhai Lakhmanbhai Rabari developed on the day of Diwali on account of lighting of firecrackers, at 8:00 p.m. on 24.10.2006, near the shop of Gopal Babar situated at village Samadhiyala of Sayla Taluka, accused Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold the deceased Dhanjibhai Valabhai Rabari and accused No. 1 Bharatbhai Vaghabhai inflicted a fatal knife blow on the stomach of the deceased Dhanjibhai Valabhai and thereby committed his murder. Thus, the appellant was charged with the offence of murder and also charged with the offence of keeping deadly weapon such as knife with him and thereby committed the breach of the notification issued by the District Magistrate under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused were also charged with the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. 5. In order to prove the aforesaid charge against the present appellant, the prosecution has examined following witnesses: Sr. No. Name Exh. No. Remarks 1 Dr. Ramnivas Ramlagan Sharma 14 Who has carried out P.M. 2 Aapabhai Lakhmanbhai 27 Complainant 3 Dr. Rakesh Markand Maitri 29 Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Vinchhiya 4 Witness Savshibhai Karshanbhai 34 Eyewitness Rabari 5 Panch witness Jivanbhai Parshottum- 37 Panch witness of bhai Mithapara Panchnama of scene of offence 6 Panch witness Khodabhai Sardulbhai 43 Panch witness of Bavalia Panchnama of arrest and seizure of Muddmal article. Rakesh Markand Maitri 29 Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Vinchhiya 4 Witness Savshibhai Karshanbhai 34 Eyewitness Rabari 5 Panch witness Jivanbhai Parshottum- 37 Panch witness of bhai Mithapara Panchnama of scene of offence 6 Panch witness Khodabhai Sardulbhai 43 Panch witness of Bavalia Panchnama of arrest and seizure of Muddmal article. 7 Panch witness Kalubhai Govindbhai 45 Panch witness of Babar Panchnama of arrest and seizure of Muddmal article 8 Panch witness Gagjibhai Bijalbhai 46 Panch witness of Koli panchnama of discovery and recovery of muddamal article 11, knife 9 Panch witness Gabhrubhai Jinabhai 51 Panch witness of Karpada panchnama of discovery and recovery of mudd- amal article 11, knife 10 Panch witness Pathabhai Rambhai 52 Panch witness of Bavalia panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused 11 Panch witness Amubhai Amrabhai 56 Panch witness of Bavalia panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused 12 Witness Lakhmanbhai Valabhai 57 Eyewitness Khatana 13 Witness Devrajbhai Hira Rabari 58 Eyewitness (Ragiya) 14 Witness Rameshbhai Mafatlal 61 Dy. Mamlatdar Chaudhari 15 Ranchodbhai Mulabhai Parmar 65 A.S.I. 16 Rameshbhai Dhanrajbhai 73 Witness 17 Jitudan Devidan Gadhvi 76 P.S.I. Who had taken the complaint of the complainant 18 Janaksinh Balvantsinh Zala 80 Police Constable (Arms) 19 Jayendrasinh Ramsinh Rana 82 Police Head Constable 20 Vidhinkumar Kishorchandra Pandya 83 P.S.I., Investigating Officer 6. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence: Sr. No. Description of document Exh. The prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence: Sr. No. Description of document Exh. 1 Police Yadi of Postmortem 15 2 M.L.C. Casepapers 16 3 M.L.C. Refer Note to Civil Hospital, Rajkot 17 4 Death report from the Police to Civil Hospital, Rajkot 18 5 Carbon copy of Inquest Panchnama 19 6 Slip of handing over the clothes on deadbody 20 7 Forwarding letter 21 8 P.M. Note (original) 22 9 Carbon copy of P.M. Note 23 10 Certificate regarding cause of death of deceased 24 11 Original complaint 28 12 Medical certificate of deceased issued by Community 30 Health Centre, Vinchhiya 13 M.L.C case-paper of deceased 31 14 M.L.C. Case-paper of injured 32 15 Medical certificate of injured 33 16 Inquest Panchnama 35 17 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of deceased 36 18 Panchnama of scene of offence 38 19 Panchnama of arrest of accused as well as seizure 44 panchnama of Muddamal vehicles 20 Discovery panchnama 48 21 Discovery panchnama of iron bar used by accused No.3 50 22 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused No.2 55 23 Yadi of preparation of map of scene of occurrence 62 24 Map of scene of occurrence 64 25 True copy of entry No.19/06 from the diary of Sayla Police 66 Station 26 F.I.R. registered with Pradhuman Nagar Police Station 68 27 True copy of entry No.2/06 from the diary of Sayla Police 70 Station 28 True copy of entry No.4/06 from the diary of Sayla Police 71 Station 29 True copy of entry No.7/06 from the diary of Sayla Police 72 Station 30 Letter of F.S.L., Junagadh 84 31 Acknowledgment receipt regarding receiving Muddamal 85 Articles to F.S.L., Junagadh 32 Analysis report of F.S.L., Junagadh 86 33 Report of F.S.L., Junagadh (Physics) 87 34 Serological report of F.S.L., Junagadh 88 7. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.I. Kazi for the appellant and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the learned Sessions Judge had, after having found contradiction in the eye-witnesses account as well as other evidence regarding role of accused Nos. 2 and 3, acquitted accused No. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.I. Kazi for the appellant and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the learned Sessions Judge had, after having found contradiction in the eye-witnesses account as well as other evidence regarding role of accused Nos. 2 and 3, acquitted accused No. 2. Learned counsel also argued that the appellant who has been held guilty of the offence of murder is only 19 years old and he had given only one blow to the deceased and therefore he could have been punished for the lessor offence rather than the offence of murder. Learned counsel also argued that the accused had no criminal antecedent and that therefore his sentence may be reduced. 9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error of law which calls for interference by this Court. Learned APP also submitted that there is a clear, cogent and reliable evidence against the present appellant who, keeping grudge in mind, came with a lethal weapon like knife in his waist and due to previous animosity, within a spur of the moment, he had inflicted a very serious blow on the stomach of the deceased due to which even intestine came out from his stomach and he succumbed to the injury within few hours. Therefore, the intention of the accused of causing death of the deceased is apparent. He further submitted that the evidence do not suggest that on account of sudden provocation the accused inflicted a knife blow to the deceased. Due to previous animosity and keeping grudge in mind the accused directly given a fatal blow which itself is indicative of his intention to kill the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has elaborately dealt with all the contentions which were raised before him and recorded clear finding thereon. There appears no discrepancy or error of law apparent on the face of the judgment and therefore there is no reason to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned APP also argued that the appeal is merit-less and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. There appears no discrepancy or error of law apparent on the face of the judgment and therefore there is no reason to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned APP also argued that the appeal is merit-less and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. In order to decide the present appeal in proper perspective, it is necessary to narrate the brief evidence which is on record of present appeal. 11. In order to prove that the death of the deceased Dhanjibhai was homicidal, the prosecution has examined Dr. Rakesh Markand Maitri who was the Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Vinchhiya before whom the deceased Dhanjibhai Valjibhai Bhatiya was brought at about 8:30 p.m. on the day of incident. The said Doctor deposed that upon preliminary examination, the said Doctor noted a puncture wound on the abdomen above Umbilicus of the deceased. As the injury was very serious, he referred the deceased to the Civil Hospital at Rajkot. During the course of his examination-in-chief the muddamal article No. 11, knife was shown to him. In his opinion, the injury found on the body of the injured is possible with this knife and the injury was very serious. In the crossexamination he has, however, admitted that the deceased has not given any name of the assailants. 12. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot. The Doctor Ramnivas Ramlagan Sharma, P.W. 1, who had carried out the Postmortem of the deceased at Civil Hospital, Rajkot has been examined at Exh. 1. He deposed that on the day of incident he was on duty as Medical Officer (P.M.) at Civil Hospital, Rajkot. On that day, at about 10:35 p.m. in the night, Dhanjibhai Valabhai has been brought by the Police Head Constable in dead condition. The Doctor who was on duty had examined Dhanjibhai and found him dead. He deposed that he has carried out the postmortem of the deceased upon receipt of death report from the police and inquest panchnama. The Doctor has admitted that the injury No. 1 is possible with the muddamal article No. 11, knife. He produced the postmortem report at Exh. 22. In the postmortem report he had recorded the following injuries: “(i) Stab injury wound over abdomen below sternum just Lt. to umbilical line (in hypo chondrium) in downward, upward and in oblique Lt. To Rt. He produced the postmortem report at Exh. 22. In the postmortem report he had recorded the following injuries: “(i) Stab injury wound over abdomen below sternum just Lt. to umbilical line (in hypo chondrium) in downward, upward and in oblique Lt. To Rt. Direction C shape margin C clean cut C Cavity deep. (5 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. X 10 c.m.) Haemoperitoneum. (ii) abrasion on both hands, each (5X3)c.m. (iii) 4abrasion wounds, on Rt. Side Neck, each (2X1) c.m. (iv) abrasion on Lt. Neck (3X1)c.m.” 12.1. In his opinion, the final cause of death is Haemorahagic shock due to intra and extra abdominal hemorrhage due to assaulted stab injury wound over abdomen with haemoperitoneum. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant has committed the murder of the deceased Dhanjibhai Valabhai by inflicting a fatal knife blow on the stomach of the deceased. To prove the aforesaid accusation, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of the following eye-witnesses. 14. The complainant Aapabhai Laxmanbhai – P.W.2 was examined at Exh.27. In his examination-in-chief the said witness has deposed that the incident had happened at the shop of Gopal Babri at about 8:00 p.m. on 24.10.2006. At the time of incident, when the witness himself, along with other persons viz. Devraj Vira, Lakhman Vala and Savsi Karshan, was sitting on a water tank near the shop of Gopal Babri, the accused Bharat Vagha, Hansraj Vagha and Kalu Shamji came there and picked up a quarrel with his cousin brother Dhanjibhai regarding lighting of fire-crackers. He has deposed that Hansraj Vagha and Kalu Shamji, who were equipped with iron bar, caught hold Dhanjibhai and thereafter Bharat Vagha (present appellant) inflicted a knife blow to the deceased in his stomach. He also deposed that when his cousin brother Savsi tried to rescue, Kalu Shamji inflicted iron bar blow on his back-head and thereafter the accused ran away on their motorcycle. Thereafter, Dhanjibhai had taken to the Community Health Centre, Vinchhiya. The Doctor who was on duty at Community Health Centre, Vinchhiya had examined Dhanjibhai and considering the seriousness of the injury, he had referred Dhanjibhai to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot, where he declared dead. The said witness also identified the knife used for commission of the offence. He also identified the accused who were present in the Court. 14.1. The Doctor who was on duty at Community Health Centre, Vinchhiya had examined Dhanjibhai and considering the seriousness of the injury, he had referred Dhanjibhai to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot, where he declared dead. The said witness also identified the knife used for commission of the offence. He also identified the accused who were present in the Court. 14.1. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that except the incident of altercation happened on Sunday i.e. two days before the date of incident regarding lighting of fire-crackers, there was no prior enmity between the accused and them. He has also admitted that he had, in his complaint, stated that Bharat Vagha inflicted a fatal knife blow on the stomach of Dhanjibhai. He has denied the defence suggestion that he has not seen the incident. He also denied the defence suggestion that it is not true that in his presence the accused Bharatbhai Vaghabhai had inflicted a knife blow to the deceased Dhanjibhai on his stomach. 15. Another eyewitness P.W.4 – Savsibhai Karshanbhai Rabari was examined at Exh.19. He deposed that the incident occurred in between 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. on 24.10.2006. At that time, he himself, Aapa Laxman, Devraj Vira and Lakha Vala were sitting on stones lying besides a water tank near the shop of Gopal Babar. At that time, Dhanji Vala came there. After some time, the accused came there on two motorcycles and picked up a quarrel with Dhanjibhai. The quarrel was with regard to lighting of fire-crackers. The accused Hansraj and Kalu had caught hold Dhanjibhai and Bharat had inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of Dhanjibhai. The witness also deposed that when he tried to rescue, Kalu had given an iron bar blow on the backside of his head and he was fallen down. Thereafter the accused fled away. This witness had also identified the knife, muddamal article 11 and iron bar, muddamal article No. 3, which were used for commission of the offence. 15.1. In his cross-examination, the witness had denied the suggestion of the defence that Kalu Shamji was not equipped with any weapon at the time of incident. The witness also denied of Kalu Shamji having no pipe at the time of incident. He also denied the suggestion of the defence that Kalu Shamji had not injured him. 16. 15.1. In his cross-examination, the witness had denied the suggestion of the defence that Kalu Shamji was not equipped with any weapon at the time of incident. The witness also denied of Kalu Shamji having no pipe at the time of incident. He also denied the suggestion of the defence that Kalu Shamji had not injured him. 16. Lakhmanbhai Valabhai Khatana – P.W.12, Exh.12 has deposed that he was staying at Samadhiyala with his family and doing agricultural work. The incident occurred in between 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. on 24.10.2006. At the time of incident, he was, after taking pan mava from the shop of Gopal Bhikha, sitting near the water tank. At that time, Devraj Vira, Aapa Lakshman and Savsi Karshan were accompanied him. At that time Dhano alias Dhanji Vala came in his Chhakado Rickshaw. After some time, Bharat Vagha, Hansraj Vagha and Kalu Shamji came upon two motorcycles being Bajaj CT-100 and Rajdoot. They started exchange of words with Dhanji. Bharat had started scuffle with Dhanji. Hansraj and Kalu caught hold Dhanji and Bharat had given a knife blow to Dhanji on his stomach. 16.1. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he was sitting besides the water tank near the shop of Gopalbhai. He denied that he was not present when the incident occurred. He also admitted that at the time of incident there were four persons present. 17. Another eyewitness Devrajbhai Hira Rabari – P.W.13 was examined at Exh.58. He deposed before the Court that he is residing at village Samadhiyala with his family since his birth. The incident occurred before about 8 to 9 months on Diwali. The incident occurred in between 8:00 to 8:30 in the night. At that time he was sitting at the shop of Gopal Babar. At that time, Aapa Lakhmanbhai, Lakhman Valabhai and Savsi Karshanbhai were there with him. After some time, Dhanji Valabhai came there with his Chhakado Rickshaw. At that time Bharat Vagha, Hansraj Vagha came there on one motorcycle and Kalu Shamji came on another motorcycle. Hansraj Vagha was carrying an iron bar with him. These three persons started exchange of words with Dhanjibhai and Bharat Vagha had inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of Dhanjibhai. Hansraj Vagha and Kalu Shamji caught hold the deceased Dhanjibhai. At that time Bharat Vagha, Hansraj Vagha came there on one motorcycle and Kalu Shamji came on another motorcycle. Hansraj Vagha was carrying an iron bar with him. These three persons started exchange of words with Dhanjibhai and Bharat Vagha had inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of Dhanjibhai. Hansraj Vagha and Kalu Shamji caught hold the deceased Dhanjibhai. Kalu Shamji had taken the iron bar from Hansraj Vagha and given a blow with that bar to Savsibhai who had tried to rescue. 17.1. In his cross-examination this witness had denied of having not seen the incident. He has also denied of having given false deposition. 18. Jivanbhai Parshottumbhai Mithapara, P.W.5, Exh. 37 was the panch witness of the scene of offence. He has deposed that the panchnama was carried out in his presence. He has signed the panchnama and he along with other panch and investigating officer noted the scattered blood stains on the otla nearby the shop of Gopal Babar. During the course of panchnama various samples were drawn in his presence and they were sealed and he signed in presence of the investigating officer. 19. The panch witness Khodabhai Shardulbhai Bavalia – P.W. 6 was examined at Exh.43 and Kalubhai Govindbhai Babar – P.W. 7 was examined at Exh. 45 in order to prove that the investigating agency has drawn the panchnama of arrest while arresting the accused and seizure of two motorcycles used during the course of alleged crime. Though, aforesaid both the panchas turned hostile, they have admitted their signatures upon the panchnama and the panchnama was exhibited at Exh. 44. 20. P.W.8, Gagjibhai Bijalbhai was examined vide Exh. 46 as the panch witness of the discovery of knife used for the commission of the offence. Though, he turned hostile, he has admitted his signature upon the panchnama as well as slips in the seizure memo. 21. In order to prove the discovery of muddamal article 11, knife, the prosecution has produced the panchnama at Exh.48 carried out during the course of the investigation. Of course, as noted above, the panchas have turned hostile. But they have admitted their signatures put on the Panchnama of discovery of muddamal article and they have also admitted their signatures over the slips. 22. Vidhinkumar Kishorchandra Pandya, P.W.20, Exh.83 was the Investigating Officer who has carried out the investigation. Of course, as noted above, the panchas have turned hostile. But they have admitted their signatures put on the Panchnama of discovery of muddamal article and they have also admitted their signatures over the slips. 22. Vidhinkumar Kishorchandra Pandya, P.W.20, Exh.83 was the Investigating Officer who has carried out the investigation. He has deposed in clear terms how the investigation was carried out. In order to prove the discovery of weapon at the instance of the accused by leading the investigating agency along with the panchas to the place where he has concealed the knife, this witness has clearly deposed that the accused Bharat Vagha, Kalu Shamji and Hansraj Vagha, along with police personnel, went in a private vehicle to village Dhinkwadi. This witness deposed that as the accused Bharat Vagha has shown willingness to produce the knife which was used for commission of the offence, he has informed the Panchas in this regard and they have shown their willingness to stand as Panchas. After drawing preliminary panchnama, as directed by the accused Bharat Vagha, they reached on Dhinkwadi-Vinchhiya road. They, thereafter, reached at the house of the accused near the office of old Panchyat wherein under the heap of the grass the accused has taken out the knife which was used for commission of the offence. Thereafter, the description of the knife was also taken down in the panchnama and it was seized and sent for analysis. 23. So far as discovery panchnama is concerned, we may note that though the Panchas had turned hostile, on going through the evidence of the Investigating Officer in whose presence the aforesaid panchnama was carried out, he has clearly and categorically deposed that the aforesaid panchnama has been drawn in his presence and in presence of Panchas and Panchas have also admitted their signatures on the said panchnama. After having admitted their signatures on the discovery panchnama, the Panchas turned hostile. In the case of Ramesh Harijan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012(5) SCC 777 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it would be open for the prosecution to rely on the contents of the Panchnama when the Panchas have admitted their signatures on the panchnama and recitals of the panchnama were proved through the investigating officer. 24. 24. In view of the aforesaid procedure carried out in presence of Panchas by the Investigating Officer, the knife was discovered at the instance of the accused. The weapon in the sealed condition was sent for analysis to the F.S.L. and the F.S.L. Report is also produced on record at Exh.86 which suggest that the blood which was found on the knife was having “O” group which was the blood group of the deceased Dhanjibhai. 25. We may also note at this stage that during the course of investigation, when the accused was arrested on 26.10.2006, the shirt worn by the accused Bharat Vagha was taken for investigation which was ultimately sent for analysis to F.S.L. The F.S.L. Report suggests that the aforesaid shirt was carrying blood stains of ‘O’ group as that of the deceased Dhanjibhai. 26. It can be seen from the aforesaid evidence on record that the prosecution has successfully brought on record that the victim Dhanjibhai was there at the place of incident along with the complainant and other three eye-witnesses viz. Lakhman Vala, Devraj Vira and Savsi Karshanbhai. Upon infliction of knife blow on the deceased Dhanjibhai they shouted due to which other persons viz. Vala Hama, Lakhman Hama, Virambhai Motibhai, etc. also came to the place of the incident. This fact is revealing from the FIR Exh.28 itself which has been lodged by the first informant before the Police Sub Inspector, Pradyuman Nagar Police Station, Rajkot at about 00:30 hours on the same night when the incident occurred. Admittedly, the incident occurred in between 8:00 to 8:30 p.m. at village Samadhiyala Raba, Taluka: Sayla, District: Surendranagar where the victim Dhanjibhai sustained serious injury, in consequence whereof he was firstly taken to the Community Health Centre at Vinchhiya where he was primarily treated and thereafter considering the seriousness of injury sustained by the victim Dhanjibhai he was referred to the Civil Hospital, Rajkot at where, upon examination, the victim was found dead and thereafter the First Information Report was recorded. The First Information Report was given in the city of Rajkot which is a distance place from the scene of occurrence and a different District headquarter. The First Information Report was given in the city of Rajkot which is a distance place from the scene of occurrence and a different District headquarter. It is also noteworthy that the FIR is given within a few hours after the incident took place which contains the details of the incident, genesis of the incident, participation of the accused as well as the presence of the eye-witnesses and certain other particulars relating to crime also. 27. Similarly, the inquest panchnama also came to be drawn by the same officer of Pradhuman Nagar Police Station and he has also arranged for the Postmortem of the dead body at the Civil Hospital at Rajkot. 28. On receipt of the information, the Investigating Officer on the same night inspected the place of incident and thereafter on arrival of dead body and after death ceremony of deceased Dhanjibhai, recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses as well as other witnesses and they have been examined before the learned trial Court. That itself is indicative of the fact that the FIR is recorded in the different police station of different District which contains the names of the assailants as well as the witnesses. Therefore, the question of implication of wrong accused as well as examining the wrong witnesses does not arise. 29. It also reveals that almost entire material investigation was carried out within 24 hours from the time of occurrence of the incident. 30. From perusal of the aforesaid evidence of complainant as well as three eye-witnesses, it can be seen that their evidence regarding motive of the incident, genesis of the incident and the accused Bharat Vaghabhai inflicted a knife blow on the stomach of the deceased Dhanjibhai is coherent, consistent and identical. In our scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence of the eye-witnesses, we find it trustworthy and reliable for recording the conviction of the accused Bharat Vaghabhai. 31. Over and above the aforesaid direct evidence in the nature of eye-witnesses, we have also appreciated the other corroborative evidence in the nature of various panchnamas, discovery and recovery of muddamal articles connecting the guilt of the accused. On the strength of the aforesaid evidence also we are convinced that only the accused Bharat Vaghabhai had inflicted a fatal knife blow upon the deceased Dhanjibhai and he succumbed to said injury. 32. On the strength of the aforesaid evidence also we are convinced that only the accused Bharat Vaghabhai had inflicted a fatal knife blow upon the deceased Dhanjibhai and he succumbed to said injury. 32. We have also perused the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has properly dealt with all the contentions and issues involved in the present case in a proper perspective and rightly recorded the finding, holding that the appellant had committed the murder of deceased Dhanjibhai. We also notice that the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the contention regarding some contradiction in the eye-witnesses account regarding role of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not believed the prosecution version that the deceased Dhanjibhai was caught hold of by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and consequently he has not recorded the conviction of the aforesaid two accused under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge based the conviction considering the independent participation of each accused without aid of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 1 – present appellant who had given a fatal knife blow on the stomach of the deceased under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused No. 3 has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code upon consideration of their individual act and participation in the commission of the offence. 33. The accused No. 3 who has been convicted for the commission of offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has not preferred any appeal. Similarly, the State of Gujarat has also not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 34. In view of the aforesaid clear position of evidence on record this is a pure and simple case wherein it is proved that the accused Bharat Vaghabhai had previous animosity with the deceased Dhanjibhai with regard to the incident occurred on the day of Diwali for lighting of the fire-crackers. The fact that accused No. 1 Bharat Vaghabhai, along with accused Nos. The fact that accused No. 1 Bharat Vaghabhai, along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, carrying deadly weapon like knife with him arrived at the village Samadhiyala during odd hours at night from a different village which is about 7 to 8 kilometers away from the village Samadhiyala itself is indicative of his intention to commit murder of deceased Dhanjibhai. The fact that the accused Bharat Vaghabhia had, within a spur of the moment given a fatal blow in a vital part of the body of the deceased i.e. stomach is clear indication of motive of the accused. The evidence on record does not indicate any sort of sudden provocation from the side of the deceased. The injury was very severe due to which the deceased died within a few hours that itself would satisfy all the requirement of commission of offence of murder as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 35. In above facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the accused Bharat neither falls in any exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code nor falls within the purview of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant regarding giving some benefit to the accused who was only 19 years old and having no antecedent and alleged to have given a single blow upon the deceased is not acceptable. 36. In our overall re-appreciation of evidence, we are satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in convicting the accused Bharat Vaghabhai and awarding the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been charged. 37. The appeal of the appellant is totally devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Limbdi in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2007 is confirmed qua present appellant. The appeal is dismissed. R & P be sent to the trial Court.