JUDGMENT : A. B. CHAUDHARI, J. :- Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 21.06.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicting the appellant-accused Ramulu, for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life, present appeal was filed in this Court by the appellant. . FACTS: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ganpat Kodape was residing with his wife Sushila (PW9), son Mahesh and minor daughter Sonali (PW7) at village Devalmari. Rajubai is a maternal aunt of Sushila. About a week before 01.09.2007, Rajubai had come to meet Sushila. About 4-5 days before the incident, when the deceased Ganpat and his family members were taking meals in the evening, the appellant came and shouted at Ganpat. Ganpat found that he was drunk. The appellant asked Ganpat as to why he had put a dead snake in front of his house. Ganpat pleaded mercy but Ramulu threatened him with dire consequences and left. On the date of incident i.e. on 01.09.2007 in the evening Ganpat and his daughter Sonali (PW7) went to a shop in the village and purchased Gutkha for him and biscuits for Sonali (PW7) and while returning back to their house, the appellant accosted Ganpat and struck a blow of knife on his abdomen causing instantaneous death of Ganpat on the road. The appellant's son Vyankatesh followed the suit and then both left. 3. When Sushi la, wife of the deceased returned back from market, she found her husband dead. Mutanna Dontulwar (PW 10), who is President of Tanta Mukti Samiti and Member of Gram Panchayat, was informed at Aheri, the place of his residence which is about 13 km away from village Devalmari. Mutanna Dontulwar (PWI 10) rushed to village Devalmari and found Ganpat dead near office of Gram Panchayat and also found Sushila weeping. Mutanna Dontulwar (PWI 10) lodged report to Police Station Exh.-37 against Ramulu. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court. The trial was held and the Court acquitted the appellant's son Vyankatesh but convicted the appellant. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 4. In support of the appellant, Mr. Mutanna Dontulwar (PWI 10) lodged report to Police Station Exh.-37 against Ramulu. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court. The trial was held and the Court acquitted the appellant's son Vyankatesh but convicted the appellant. Hence this appeal. SUBMISSIONS: 4. In support of the appellant, Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant, made the following submissions: (i) The trial court committed error in convicting the appellant on the basis of evidence of Sonali (PW7) a girl of six years, who admitted in the cross-examination about she not being an eye witness. (ii) The trial court has not given any cogent reasons for convicting the appellant nor shown which evidence was satisfactory to convict the appellant. The trial Court committed error in relying upon the alleged extra judicial confession to Mutanna (PWI 10) ignoring the legal position that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and should not be relied upon, without corroboration. (iii) The trial court committed an error in relying upon the alleged discovery of the knife when, as a matter of fact, that was not supported by any substantive evidence before the court. The trial court having acquitted the other accused Vyankatesh-son of the appellant, it could not have convicted the appellant in the absence of special reason for doing so which reasons have not been recorded. (iv) The trial court committed error in not finding that there was hardly any motive supplied by the prosecution for commission of the offence. (v) In the alternative, looking to the single blow of knife said to have been given by appellant, no offence under section 302 of the IPC was made out and therefore, at the most an offence under section 304II of the IPC could be made out an, therefore, this Court should alter the conviction as well as sentence accordingly. 5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State, supported the impugned judgment and order and argued that the appellant, for no reason, committed murder of Ganpat, who pleaded for mercy. The reasons given by the trial court are well founded and based on the evidence. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. CONSIDERATION: 6. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the entire evidence led by the prosecution. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The reasons given by the trial court are well founded and based on the evidence. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. CONSIDERATION: 6. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the entire evidence led by the prosecution. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Sonali (PW7) aged 6 years, had gone with her father Ganpat to a shop at the relevant time on the date of incident. She deposed before the Court that when they were coming together towards their house, accused Ramulu accosted her father and struck a blow of knife on the abdomen of her father who fell on the ground. In the cross-examination, she stated that her father had told her to stay at the house of Rajubai and enjoy biscuits and he went to the market. She came to know that her father was lying dead. She came in the court with her mother, who asked her to implicate the appellant. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant that this witness did not see the incident because as told by her father, she stayed at the house of Rajubai. What we find in the examination-in-chief is that she has categorically deposed that she had gone to the shop with her father, who purchased biscuits for her and Gutkha for him and while coming back to his house, accused Ramulu accosted and assaulted him. It is brought in the cross-examination that her father told her to stay at the house of Rajubai but it has not been brought that she accordingly stayed at the house of Rajubai in order to say that therefore, she did not see the incident proper. The cross-examination is half-hearted and we are not prepared to reject her evidence since she has not stated that she actually stayed at the house of Rajubai as per say of her father. The cross-examination of this witness, to our mind, has not at all shaken her evidence on the assault. We are not prepared to reject her evidence only because she is a child witness of six years. We are also not prepared to reject her evidence on the ground that her mother asked her to implicate the accused. The cross-examination of this witness, to our mind, has not at all shaken her evidence on the assault. We are not prepared to reject her evidence only because she is a child witness of six years. We are also not prepared to reject her evidence on the ground that her mother asked her to implicate the accused. It is not made clear that her mother had told her to implicate the accused in what and for what. This cannot be left to conjectures. We thus believe Sonali (PW7). We further find that there is a contemporaneous evidence inasmuch as Mutanna (PWI 10), President of Tanta Mukti Samiti and Member of Gram Panchayat of village Devalmari, who stays at Aheri, 13 km. away from Devalmari, received a phone call on his mobile phone from Sarpanch Gajanan Sidam at about 1.30 p.m. that one person was lying dead in the village. He therefore, made a phone call to the Police Station, Aheri. He reached to the village Devalmari and found dead body of one person lying near Gram Panchayat and the wife of the deceased was weeping. At that time, he received a call on mobile phone and the caller told him that he was Ramulu and that he was standing near Police Station, Aheri and that he killed Ganpat Kodape and wanted to surrender in the Police Station at Aheri. Accordingly, he came back to Aheri and rushed to Police Station. He found appellant Ramulu present near the premises of Police Station. At that time, the appellant Ramulu told him that on the day of Rakshabandhan, Ganpat Kodape the deceased had thrown a dead snake in front of his house and hence he got annoyed and struck the blows of knife to Ganpat Kodape and killed him. On this information, Mutanna (PWI 10) lodged report to Police Station (Exh.37). There is hardly any cross-examination to this witness worth the name. It is true that the evidence of Mutanna (PW 10) is in the form of extra judicial confession but then we find that his evidence is consistent and has not at all been shaken and is fully corroborated by report lodged by the him to Police Station Exh.-37. That apart, there is other evidence which also corroborates the prosecution evidence. 9. To sum up. we find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. 10. That apart, there is other evidence which also corroborates the prosecution evidence. 9. To sum up. we find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. 10. The next question is what is the offence! There is no dispute before us about the homicidal death of the deceased. The homicidal death of the deceased has been proved by Doctor whose evidence has also not been challenged by the defence. We reproduce the evidence of Dr. Anil Rude (PW5) thus: "4. I noticed following external injuries. I) penetrating punctured stab wound on right side of chest just below nipple 4th and 5th inter-costal space, horizontal 9 X 31/2 c.m. Lung deep with lungs seen through wounds coming out of the edges which was sharp. ii) Penetrating punctured stab would over chest left 4th inter costal space elliptical 31/2 X 2 c.m. with deep in thoracic cavity with sharp edges. iii) Penetrating punctured stab would over left side of chest 3rd inter costal space 21/2 X 1 deep in thoracic cavity oblique. iv) Lacerated wound over chin left half irregular edges. There was fracture of right corresponding to injury no. l. They were ante mortem injury and sufficient to result the death. 5) During the internal examination, no injury was noticed under the scalp. A brain was pale. Chest examination penetrating stab over chest wall 9 c.m. X 2 c.m. X deep in the thoracic cavity corresponding to injury no. l. Penetrating punctured stab would over left side of chest 3 X 6 X 1/2 c.m. X deep in thoracic cavity. Penetrating punctured stab wound over left side of chest 2 1/2 X 1 c.m. Punctured hole seen. Blood and blood clots was present bilateral1y in thoracic cavity. Both the lungs had penetrating punctured stab would corresponding to the injuries mentioned above. There was blood and blood clots. There were penetrating punctured stab purporting injury anterior aspect 3 X 2 c.m. X through and through. Penetrating punctured stab purporting injury posterior aspect 6 X 2 c.m. They were pertaining to stab injury on head. The abdominal examination reveal distended scanty rice food particles. Al1 other organs were pale. A deceased had last meal more than rive hours. I col1ected the viscera in two bottles containing blood. 6. In my opinion, it was a death due to punctured stab wound to heart, lungs by a sharp object leading a hemorrhagic shock. The abdominal examination reveal distended scanty rice food particles. Al1 other organs were pale. A deceased had last meal more than rive hours. I col1ected the viscera in two bottles containing blood. 6. In my opinion, it was a death due to punctured stab wound to heart, lungs by a sharp object leading a hemorrhagic shock. I issued accordingly a memorandum of postmortem examination. It is now shown to me, it bears my signature, it is at Exh.25." He opined in his evidence that the injuries caused to the deceased Ganpat by knife resulted into his death. He also deposed that the death was due to the punctured stab wound to heart and lungs leading in hemorrhagic shock. We, thus, hold that the death of Ganpat was homicidal. 11. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appel1ant, that the offence would not constitute murder. We do not agree with submissions of Mr. Daga. We find from the nature of injuries that the appellant caused injuries straightway on the chest which resulted into 9 cm. X 3 1/2 cm. deep hole and lungs were seen coming out from the wound. Even heart was punctured by the stab wounds. Obviously, the appellant had requisite intention to commit murder and nothing else. 12. We, therefore, hold that the case at hand is one of murder and not of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the result, we pass the following order: ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 405/2009 IS dismissed. Appeal dismissed.