JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 416 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default RI for one year. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under: Deceased Sushma was the daughter of P.W. 1 Savitaand P.W. 11 Sadanand, Sushma was residing with her parents at Thane. There was love affair between Sushma and the appellant. Sushma's parents came to know about their love affair. They questioned her. Sushma informed them that she was in love with the appellant. Then parents of Sushma made enquiry about the appellant. They came to know that the conduct of the appellant was not good and he was addicted to liquor. Then they advised Sushma to stay away from the appellant. Sushma assured her parents that she would not see and meet the appellant. The appellant thereafter started threatening Sushma to marry him. Whenever Sushma was on her way to her office, the appellant used to give threats to her and told her that if she did not marry him, he would kill her. Since then i.e. 30.3.2007, Sushma stopped going to her office. On 4.4.2007 at about 11.00 p.m. the appellant came to the house of Sushma under influence of liquor. He pelted stones at the house of Sushma. He created hue and cry. On the following day, the parents of Sushma and Sushma went to the house of the appellant. They tried to convince the appellant and his parents not to harass Sushma and not to threaten her to marry the appellant. At that time, Sushma told the appellant as well as his parents that she would not marry the appellant. Thereafter, Sushma was sent to the native place of her father in Ratnagiri District in the month of April 2007. Thereafter, Sushma came back to Thane. On 21.6.2007, Sushma started going to her company for work. On 23.6.2007, Sushma left the house at about 9.00 a.m. to go to her office. Thereafter, Sushma was sent to the native place of her father in Ratnagiri District in the month of April 2007. Thereafter, Sushma came back to Thane. On 21.6.2007, Sushma started going to her company for work. On 23.6.2007, Sushma left the house at about 9.00 a.m. to go to her office. At about 9.15 a.m. one boy came to the house of Sushma and informed her mother P.W. 1 Savita that Sushma was assaulted by one person with a knife in front of Hanuman Mandir and Sushma was taken to Civil Hospital at Thane. Savita and her husband i.e. parents of Sushma went to the Civil Hospital at Thane. They saw that their daughter had sustained several injuries on her body. Sushma then told that she was attacked by the appellant with a knife. Sushma was then taken to Sion hospital Mumbai in an ambulance. On the way to Sion hospital, Sushma again told her parents that ultimately the appellant had assaulted her. Sushma was operated in Sion hospital. However, she died in Sion hospital while treatment was going on. In the meanwhile, on 23.6.2007 itself, P.W. 1 Savita lodged F.I.R. (Exh. 12). Thereafter investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested on 28.6.2007. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant. 2. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. 4. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the oral dying declaration made by Sushma to her mother P.W. 1 Savita and her father P.W. 11 Sadanand. Savita has stated that Sushma was her daughter. 4. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the oral dying declaration made by Sushma to her mother P.W. 1 Savita and her father P.W. 11 Sadanand. Savita has stated that Sushma was her daughter. She was about 21 years of age at the time of the incident. She along with her husband, daughter Sushma and other family members were residing in Vartak Nagar at Thane. Her daughter Sushma was working in Amargyan Company at Thane. Savita knew the appellant as he used to live in their locality. About 5 to 6 months prior to the incident, she saw Sushma talking with the appellant. When Sushma came home, Savita asked Sushma about the incident. Sushma then told her that she was in love with the appellant. Savita then made enquiry about the appellant. The parents of Sushma came to know that the conduct of the appellant was not good and he was addicted to liquor. They then advised Sushma to stay away from the appellant. Sushma assured her parents that she would not see and meet the appellant. The appellant thereafter started threatening Sushma to marry him. Whenever Sushma was on her way to her office, the appellant used to give threats to her and told her that if she did not marry him, he would kill her. Since then i.e. 30.3.2007, Sushma stopped going to her office. On 4.4.2007 at about 11.00 p.m. the appellant came to the house of Sushma under influence of liquor. He pelted stones at the house of Sushma. He created hue and cry. On the following day, the parents of Sushma and Sushma went to the house of the appellant. They tried to convince the appellant and his parents not to harass Sushma and not to threaten her to marry the appellant. At that time, Sushma told the appellant as well as his parents that she would not marry the appellant. Thereafter, Sushma was sent to the native place of her father in Ratnagiri District in the month of April 2007. Thereafter, Sushma came back to Thane. On 21.6.2007, Sushma started going to her company for work. On 23.6.2007, Sushma left the house at about 9.00 a.m. to go to the office. Thereafter, Sushma was sent to the native place of her father in Ratnagiri District in the month of April 2007. Thereafter, Sushma came back to Thane. On 21.6.2007, Sushma started going to her company for work. On 23.6.2007, Sushma left the house at about 9.00 a.m. to go to the office. At about 9.15 a.m. one boy came to the house of Sushma and informed her mother P.W. 1 Savita that Sushma was assaulted by one person with a knife in front of Hanuman Mandir and Sushma was taken to the Civil Hospital at Thane. Savita and her husband Sadanand i.e. parents of Sushma went to the Civil Hospital at Thane. They saw that their daughter had sustained several injuries on her body. Sushma told them that she was attacked by the appellant with a knife. Sushma was then taken to Sion hospital Mumbai in an ambulance. On the way to Sion hospital, Sushma again told her parents that ultimately the appellant had assaulted her. 5. The evidence of P.W. 11 Sadanand who was father of Sushma, shows that the appellant used to obstruct Sushma when she was on her way to the office and harass her. Due to harassment by the appellant, Sushma stopped going for work. He then sent Sushma to his native place in Ratnagiri district. She came back from Ratnagiri on 30.5.2007. From 21.6.2007 Sushma started going to work at Amargyan Company at Thane. Sadanand has stated that on 23.6.2007 Sushma left home at 9.00 a.m. to go to work. At about 9.30 a.m. he came to know through some boys that Sushma was assaulted with knife near Maruti Mandir. He and his wife then went to Civil Hospital at Thane. In the hospital, they saw their daughter Sushma was lying in a pool of blood. Sushma told Sadanand that she was assaulted by the appellant with knife on her stomach, chest, back and face. Sushma was then taken in an Ambulance to Sion hospital, Mumbai. He and his wife Savita accompanied Sushma in the ambulance. On the way to Sion hospital in the ambulance, Sushma again told them that she was assaulted by the appellant. Sushma died in Sion hospital while undergoing treatment as indoor patient. 6. Sushma was then taken in an Ambulance to Sion hospital, Mumbai. He and his wife Savita accompanied Sushma in the ambulance. On the way to Sion hospital in the ambulance, Sushma again told them that she was assaulted by the appellant. Sushma died in Sion hospital while undergoing treatment as indoor patient. 6. The evidence of P.W. 1 Savita and P.W. 11 Sadanand who were parents of Sushma, shows that Sushma had made oral dying declaration to both of them wherein Sushma had stated that the appellant had assaulted her with knife. In relation to oral dying declaration, the Supreme Court in the case of Heikrujam Chaoba Singh Vs. State of Manipur (1999) 8 SCC 458 , has held that an oral dying declarations can no doubt, form the basis of conviction. It is further observed in the case of Hiekrujam (supra) as under: "But before the dying declaration can be acted upon, the Court must be satisfied about the truthfulness of the same and that the said declaration was made by the deceased while he was in a fit condition to make the statement. The dying declaration has to be taken as a whole and the witness who deposes about such oral declaration to him must pass the scrutiny of reliability". On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 Savita and P.W. 11 Sadanand, we find that the same to be truthful and reliable, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 7. In addition to two oral dying declarations, the prosecution is relying on the circumstance of motive. P.W. 1 Savita and P.W. 16 Devendra have deposed about the motive. Savita stated that her daughter told her that there was love affair with the appellant. Then she made enquiry about the appellant and found that his conduct was not good and he was addicted to liquor, hence, she advised her daughter to stay away from the appellant and her daughter promised her that she would not see and meet the appellant. However, thereafter, the appellant started threatening Sushma to marry him. On 5.4.2007, Savita along with her husband and her daughter Sushma went to the house of the appellant to convince the appellant and his parents not to harass Sushma and not to give threats to marry the appellant. At that time, Sushma told the appellant and his parents that she would not marry the appellant. On 5.4.2007, Savita along with her husband and her daughter Sushma went to the house of the appellant to convince the appellant and his parents not to harass Sushma and not to give threats to marry the appellant. At that time, Sushma told the appellant and his parents that she would not marry the appellant. This fact had enraged the appellant and he converted his threats to kill Sushma into reality. 8. P.W. 16 Devendra has stated that the appellant was working in his office as an Assistant. He had seen the appellant with Sushma. The appellant disclosed to Devendra that Sushma was his fiancée and they were going to marry. Thereafter, he came to know from the appellant that parents of Sushma were against the marriage. Thus, it becomes evident that as the marriage of the appellant and Sushma could not take place, the appellant caused death of Sushma. 9. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W. 5 Subhash who is a panch witness. Subhash has stated about the seizure of clothes of the appellant at the time of arrest. The said clothes were T-shirt, full pant and underwear i.e. Articles 17 to 19. All the clothes were blood stained. These clothes were sent to the Chemical Analyser. The prosecution is also relying on the evidence of P.W. 8 Anil who was working as a Press Photographer with Times of India. Anil has stated that on 23.6.2007 at about 8.30 a.m. he was proceeding from Khopat S.T. Bus Stand to Cadbury. After some time, he reached the temple. He saw one lady lying on the opposite side of the road and some persons had gathered there. Hence, he parked his motorcycle and went to the spot. He saw the lady lying on the road in a pool of blood. One person was noticed lying next to the lady. A knife was noticed lying between two injured persons. He was wearing yellow shirt. At that time, he took photographs. Anil then gave call to the police and informed the above facts and sent the lady to the civil hospital. He put the boy in another auto rickshaw and sent him to civil hospital at Thane. On reaching the civil hospital, he came to know that the lady was admitted in the hospital but the boy was not found in the hospital. He put the boy in another auto rickshaw and sent him to civil hospital at Thane. On reaching the civil hospital, he came to know that the lady was admitted in the hospital but the boy was not found in the hospital. He came to know that injured boy had run away towards Makhamali Talao road. Hence, he went to Makhamali Talao. He found injured boy had thrown his yellow shirt in the Talao. He took a photograph of the shirt. There were blood stains on the shirt. The evidence on record shows that the said shirt was seized by the police and sent to the Chemical Analyser. The clothes of the deceased girl were sent to the C.A. The C.A. report shows that the clothes of the deceased were stained with blood of "AB" group which shows that the blood group of the deceased was "AB". The shirt was stained with blood of "AB" group. The T-shirt, pant and underwear of the appellant were also stained with blood which was found to be human blood. As per the C.A. report (Exh. 51) the blood group of the appellant was "A". The blood on the yellow shirt was of "AB" group. The appellant has not furnished any explanation for the presence of blood of "AB" group on his shirt which is a strong incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 10. The Supreme Court in case of Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853 observed that if the group of blood on the weapon or clothes of the accused is not determined, it does not make the circumstance of no consequence. It has further observed that finding of human blood on weapon and clothes of the accused lends corroboration to the prosecution case, more so, when the accused has not explained presence of human blood on the said articles. 11. Further the Supreme Court in the case of Gura Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri.) 764 (S.C.)] observed as under: "In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Teja Ram Case (1999) 3 SCC 507 ) we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the absence of the report regarding the 'origin of the blood, the trial Court could not have convicted the accused. The Serologist & Chemical Examiner has found that the chadar seized in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the appellant was stained with human blood. As with lapse of time the classification of the blood could not be determined, no bonus is conferred upon the accused to claim any benefit on the strength of such a belated and stale argument. The trial Court as well as the High Court were, therefore, justified in holding the circumstance as proved beyond doubt against the appellant." 12. The appellant was arrested on 28.6.2007 and he was taken to the Medical Officer in the civil hospital at Thane for examination. P.W. 10 Dr. Jadhav found four injuries on his person including sutured C.L.W. over the epigastric region. The appellant gave history that the injuries were self-inflicted and he also stated that the suturing on the epigastric region was done at Nashik about 5 days ago. P.W. 9 Dr. Lokwani was working as Medical Officer in the Municipal hospital at Nashik. She has stated that she examined the appellant. The appellant gave history that he received injuries on account of falling while alighting from a train. 13. On examination, Dr. Lokwani found three abrasions on his body and one incised wound over abdomen. As the injured person had given the history of falling from a train while alighting a train, she did not make it a medico-legal case. Dr. Lokwani has stated that on 2.7.2007 police brought the appellant to her hospital. At that time, the appellant disclosed his name as Prashant Prabhakar Parab. Dr. Lokwani has stated that on 25.7.2007 the appellant Prashant had come alone to the hospital and gave history. She has stated that then the appellant gave his name as Raja Sahadeo Parab aged 26 years and he gave her history of injury while alighting from train. 14. The learned advocate for the appellant pointed out that Dr. Lokwani has stated that the appellant came to her hospital on 25.7.2007 which is not possible because the appellant was arrested on 28.6.2007. On going through the evidence of Dr. Lokwani as well as the medical papers, we find that the date 25.7.2007 is wrongly mentioned and instead of month "7" i.e. July it ought to have been "6" i.e. June, because it becomes very clear that Dr. Lokwani has stated on 2.7.2007 the police brought the appellant to her hospital. On going through the evidence of Dr. Lokwani as well as the medical papers, we find that the date 25.7.2007 is wrongly mentioned and instead of month "7" i.e. July it ought to have been "6" i.e. June, because it becomes very clear that Dr. Lokwani has stated on 2.7.2007 the police brought the appellant to her hospital. The medical papers also show that the police had taken the appellant to the hospital on 2.7.2007. 15. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted Sushma with knife which led to her death. This is corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 15 Dr. Dere conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Sushma. On external examination, he found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound of 3 x 0.5 c.m. sutured over nasal bridge; (ii) Incised wound of 5 x 0.5 c.m. over right cheek sutured; (iii) Incised wound of 5 x 0.5 c.m. over upper lip sutured; (iv) Incised wound of 7.05 c.m. over left cheek. On external examination, he found the following injuries: (i) Incised wound of 3 x 0.5 c.m. sutured over nasal bridge; (ii) Incised wound of 5 x 0.5 c.m. over right cheek sutured; (iii) Incised wound of 5 x 0.5 c.m. over upper lip sutured; (iv) Incised wound of 7.05 c.m. over left cheek. (v) Incised wound of 4 x 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. over right chest just below right clavicle sutured; (vi) Stab of 4 x 0.5 x 4 c.m. over right side of chest lateral to mid-sternal line punctured in right atria sutures; (vii) Stab wound of 1 x 0.5 x 4 c.m. over right chest 4th inter costal space punctured in right atria sutured; (viii) Stab of 3 x 0.5 c.m. x 4 c.m. over right hypochondrium punctured in right lobe of liver through and through; (ix) Stab of 4 x 0.5 c.m. punctured in ceacal posteriorly sutured; (x) Stab of 3 x 0.5 x 2 c.m. over left hypochondrium and punctured in liver right lobe; (xi) Incised wound of 2 x 0.5 c.m. over left thigh sutured; (xii) Incised wound of 4 x 0.5 c.m. just below above mentioned injury; (xiii) Incised wound of 3 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. over right shoulder anteriorly; (xiv) Incised wound of 4 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. over right elbow anteriorly; (xv) Incised wound of 5 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. over right elbow anteriorly; (xvi) Incised wound of 5 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. over right elbow anteriorly just lateral to medial epicondynle; (xvii) Incised wound of 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m. over right arum sutured; (xviii) Incised wound 3 in number, over right palm, 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. sutured; (xix) Incised wound of 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. x 3 x 0.5 cm., 4 x 0.5 c.m. over posterior aspect of right forearm sutured just below elbow; (xx) Incised wound of 4 x 0.5 c.m. over right dorsum of hand sutured; (xxi) Incised wound of 2 x 0.5 cm., 3 x 0.5 cm., 4 x 0.5 cm., 2 x 0.5 cm., 3 x 0.5 c.m. over right back from scapular region to above sacral ala sutured; (xxii) Incised wound of 2 x 0.5 c.m. over right gluteal region sutured; (xxiii) Incised wound of 4 x 0.5 c.m., 5 x .05 c.m., 7 x 0.5 c.m. above left eblow posteriorly vertically placed sutured; (xxiv) Incised wound 7 x 0.5 c.m. over left forearm just below left elbow posteriorly sutured; (xxv) Incised wound of 1 x 1 c.m., 1 x 1 c.m., 3 x 1 c.m. over left hand posteriorly. 16. On internal examination, Dr. Dere noticed haematoma of 3 x 2 c.m. over right parietal area. There was subdural haematoma of 6 x 3 c.m. over right parietal lobe. During examination of thorax, he noticed haematoma on right side of 50 ml. There were laceration over right lower lobe of right lung, which was in sutured condition. Similarly, laceration on left lobe was also located. The pericardium was also found sutured. There were two tears over right atrium and it was sutured. After examination of abdomen, Dr. Dere noticed cost ceacal perforation 2 in number sutured, left splinic flexed haematoma diagram 5 tears sutured over right and left womb. Liver was pale, sutured, wound over right lobe 3 in number. External injuries mentioned at Sr. Nos. 6 and 7 were corresponding with internal injuries sustained to heart. The external injuries at Sr. Nos. 8 and 10 are corresponding to injuries mentioned in the abdomen over liver. The external injury at Sr. No. 9 corresponds to injuries mentioned in abdomen over large and small intestine accompanied with diaphragms. According to Dr. Dere, cause of death of deceased Sushma must be shock following multiple stab wounds which can be considered as unnatural and the external injuries mentioned above and its corresponding internal injuries must have been caused by sharp, cutting and pointed weapon. In Dr. Dere's opinion, the knife (Article 7) could cause such type of injuries mentioned above. 17. On going through the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of Sushma by assaulting her with a knife. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is therefore, dismissed. 18. Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail. We quantify legal fees to be paid to appointed Advocate Ms. Nasreen Ayubi by the High Court Legal Services Committee at Rs. 5,000/-.