JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2006 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Convicted u/s Sentenced to 302, IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, I.D.R.I. for 1 year 201,IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, I.D.R.I. for 1 month 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) The appellant was the nephew of deceased Sukhdevsingh. Sukhdevsingh was running a transport business at Turbhe. He was also residing at Turbhe. The appellant was residing in State of Punjab. Since 2 & 1/2 years prior to the incident, Sukhdevsingh brought the appellant to Turbhe and the appellant was working with Sukhdevsingh as money collector in his transport business. On one or two occasions, the appellant had misappropriated the amount of the deceased, however, as the appellant was nephew of the deceased, no complaint was lodged against him. (b) The incident occurred on 14.6.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. At that time, PW 2 Manik was returning from Nerul, Navi Mumbai to Kolikopar. He was on a scooter. Manik had a motor garage at Kolikopar. Two boys working in the garage were accompanying Manik. They were all travelling triple seat on the scooter of Manik. They filled petrol at petrol pump in front of D.Y. Patil Medical College. Thereafter, they started following service road passing towards Uran turning. On the service road, they witnessed a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/N-8081. The Maruti car had given dash to a tree on the road from back side. Manik stopped his scooter. They noticed two persons lying in nearby gutter. One person had a black colour checks shirt on his person (appellant). Other person was an old person. The younger person wearing black checks shirt was lying on the body of old person. The old person who was lying down was crying, "save me, save me". Manik asked the two persons what was going on. Thereupon, the youngster wearing black checks shirt got enraged and came towards them with a knife in his hand. Manik and others accompanying him got frightened and sat on the scooter and went away. The old person who was lying down was crying, "save me, save me". Manik asked the two persons what was going on. Thereupon, the youngster wearing black checks shirt got enraged and came towards them with a knife in his hand. Manik and others accompanying him got frightened and sat on the scooter and went away. Manik has identified the appellant as the person who was wearing black checks shirt. (c) After proceeding some distance near Uran turning bus stop, Manik narrated the incident to some auto rickshaw drivers and motor cycle riders, however, they exhibited their reluctance to intervene in the matter. However, two persons who had declined to interfere gave them telephone number of the police station. Manik noted the number of the police station on his palm. Thereafter, Manik asked his two employees to stay at the bus stop and keep a watch on the Maruti car and the two persons. Manik then alone went to telephone booth of nearby Bhimashankar Society on his scooter and called the police station. He narrated the incident to the police on telephone. He again came back to Uran turning bus stop. Meanwhile, he witnessed the said Maruti 800 car stopping on the signal of Uran turning square. He, therefore, along with his two employees chased the Maruti car on his scooter. Meanwhile, a police jeep came from behind. (d) The car proceeded towards C.B.D. side. The appellant was driving the Maruti car. On seeing the police jeep, Manik left his scooter and went towards the police jeep. He pointed out the Maruti car to them which was going towards C.B.D. side. Two policemen alighted from the jeep. Thereafter, the jeep driver started chasing the Maruti car. One policeman stayed with Manik's friends at the bus stop. The other policeman sat on Manik's scooter and they started following the police jeep. While chasing, the police vehicle and Maruti vehicle brushed against each other. (e) After some distance, the police jeep overtook the Maruti car and made it stop. The appellant got down from the Maruti car and attempted to run away but the policemen surrounded him and apprehended him. Meanwhile, Manik also reached the spot. Manik and the policeman travelling with him on his scooter peeped in the Maruti car. (e) After some distance, the police jeep overtook the Maruti car and made it stop. The appellant got down from the Maruti car and attempted to run away but the policemen surrounded him and apprehended him. Meanwhile, Manik also reached the spot. Manik and the policeman travelling with him on his scooter peeped in the Maruti car. Manik noticed that the person lying below the appellant in the gutter was on the back seat of the car in an injured condition. One knife was also lying on the back seat. They shifted the injured to M.G.M. Hospital at C.B.D. but the medical officer on duty declared that the person was dead on arrival. The police then recorded the F.I.R. (Exh. 19) of Manik. Thereafter, investigation commenced. (f) The blood stained clothes which were on the person of the appellant came to be seized vide panchnama (Exh. 24). The blood stained clothes of the appellant and the blood stained clothes of the deceased were sent to C.A. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was 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 paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP 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 reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted deceased Sukhdevsingh with a knife and caused his death. 5. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of PW 2 Manik who is an eye witness to the incident. Manik has stated that the incident occurred on 14.6.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. At that time, PW 2 Manik was returning from Nerul, Navi Mumbai to Kolikopar. He was on a scooter. Manik had a motor garage at Kolikopar. Two boys working in the garage were accompanying Manik. Manik has stated that the incident occurred on 14.6.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. At that time, PW 2 Manik was returning from Nerul, Navi Mumbai to Kolikopar. He was on a scooter. Manik had a motor garage at Kolikopar. Two boys working in the garage were accompanying Manik. They were all travelling triple seat on the scooter of Manik. They filled petrol at petrol pump in front of D.Y. Patil Medical College. Thereafter, they started following service road passing towards Uran turning. On the service road, they witnessed a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/N-8081. The Maruti car had given dash to a tree on the road from back side. Manik stopped his scooter. They noticed two persons lying in nearby gutter. One person had put black colour checks shirt on his person (appellant). Other person was an old person. The younger person wearing black checks shirt was lying on the body of old person. The old person who was lying down was crying, "save me, save me". Manik asked the two persons what was going on. Thereupon, the youngster wearing black checks shirt got enraged and came towards them with a knife in his hand. Manik and other accompanying him got frightened and sat on the scooter and went away. Manik has identified the appellant as the person who was wearing black checks shirt. Manik has further stated that after proceeding some distance near Uran turning bus stop, Manik narrated the incident to some auto rickshaw drivers and motor cycle riders, however, they exhibited their reluctance to intervene in the matter. However, two persons who had declined to interfere gave them telephone number of the police station. Manik noted the number of the police station on his palm. Thereafter, Manik asked his two employees to stay at the bus stop and keep a watch on the Maruti car and the two persons. Manik then alone went to telephone booth in nearby Bhimashankar Society on his scooter and called the police station. He narrated the incident to the police on telephone. He again came back to Uran turning bus stop. Meanwhile, he witnessed the said Maruti 800 car stopping on the signal of Uran turning square. He, therefore, along with his two employees chased the Maruti car on his scooter. Meanwhile, a police jeep came from behind. Manik has further stated that the car proceeded towards C.B.D. side. He again came back to Uran turning bus stop. Meanwhile, he witnessed the said Maruti 800 car stopping on the signal of Uran turning square. He, therefore, along with his two employees chased the Maruti car on his scooter. Meanwhile, a police jeep came from behind. Manik has further stated that the car proceeded towards C.B.D. side. The appellant was driving the Maruti car. On seeing the police jeep, Manik left his scooter and went towards the police jeep. He pointed out the Maruti car to them which was going towards C.B.D. side. Two policemen alighted from the jeep. Thereafter, the jeep driver started chasing the Maruti car. One policeman stayed with Manik's friends at the bus stop. The other policeman sat on the scooter of Manik and they started following the police jeep. While chasing, both the police vehicle and the Maruti car brushed against each other. After some distance, the police jeep overtook the Maruti car and made it stop. The appellant got down from the Maruti car and attempted to run away but the policemen surrounded him and apprehended him. Meanwhile, Manik also reached the spot. Manik and the policeman travelling with him on his scooter peeped into the Maruti car. Manik noticed that the person lying below the appellant in the gutter was on the back seat of the car in injured condition. One knife was also lying on the back seat. They shifted the injured to M.G.M. Hospital at C.B.D. but the medical officer on duty declared that the person was dead. 6. The evidence of Manik shows that the appellant was seen driving Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/N-8081. The evidence of PW 1 Charanjitsingh who is the son of deceased Sukhdevsingh shows that said Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/N-8081 belonged to his father. PW 1 Charanjitsingh has stated that his father Sukhdevsingh was running a transport business at Turbhe. Sukhdevsingh was also residing at Turbhe. Charanjitsingh has stated that the appellant was the nephew of his father. Since two and half years prior to the incident, the appellant was working with his father in his transport business as money collector. Prior to that, the appellant was residing in the State of Punjab. Charanjitsingh has stated that his father was running a transport business and the appellant was also looking after the R.T.O. affairs of his father. Since two and half years prior to the incident, the appellant was working with his father in his transport business as money collector. Prior to that, the appellant was residing in the State of Punjab. Charanjitsingh has stated that his father was running a transport business and the appellant was also looking after the R.T.O. affairs of his father. Charanjitsingh has stated that on one or two occasions, the appellant had misappropriated the amount of his father. Charanjitsingh had personal knowledge about it, however, no complaint was filed against the appellant in relation to misappropriation of money of the deceased. This was probably because the appellant was the nephew of deceased Sukhdevsingh. 7. That the appellant was driving Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/N-8081 in which Sukhdevsingh was found in injured condition is also borne out by the evidence of PW 4 Police Head Constable Avhad. Avhad has stated that he was working as a driver in Nerul Police Station. He was driving Police Jeep No.MH-04/AA-3211 of Nerul Police Station. On 14.6.2004, he was deputed for patrolling duty in the jurisdiction of Nerul Police Station. At about 9.00 p.m., Sr. Police Inspector Hande (PW 10) came near his jeep and told him that one person was assaulting another person on the service road. P.I. Hande expressed his intention to rush to the spot, hence, constable Avhad along with Senior P.I. Hande and four other policemen went to Uran Phata service road in a jeep. They alighted from the jeep and inspected the spot of the incident. Meanwhile, the person who had telephoned their Police Station regarding the incident came near the jeep and informed about departure of Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/H-8081 towards C.B.D. side. P.I. Hande then asked police constable Avhad to take the jeep towards C.B.D. side via Uran Phata signal. Accordingly, Avhad started driving his jeep on that way. They noticed the Maruti car. They overtook the Maruti car and asked the driver to stop but the driver tried to speed away from there. In that attempt, the Maruti car dashed against the police jeep, however, they succeeded in stopping the Maruti car on the right side of the road. The person who had informed them about the incident also followed them to the spot. The driver of the Maruti car tried to flee away from the spot, however, he was apprehended by police. In that attempt, the Maruti car dashed against the police jeep, however, they succeeded in stopping the Maruti car on the right side of the road. The person who had informed them about the incident also followed them to the spot. The driver of the Maruti car tried to flee away from the spot, however, he was apprehended by police. Police Constable Avhad has identified the appellant as the same person who was driving the Maruti car. Avhad has further stated that he opened the back door of the car and saw one person lying calm and quiet on the backseat of the car. The person had sustained bleeding injuries. The said person was taken to M.G.M. Hospital, however, the medical officer on duty declared that the patient was dead. They took the appellant to Nerul Police Station. 8. The evidence of PW 2 Manik is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 Rajesh who was running S.T.D. booth at Nerul. Manik has stated that when he witnessed the incident, he informed the same to some auto rickshaw drivers and other persons about it, however, though they exhibited their reluctance to intervene, they gave him telephone number of the Police Station. Manik noted down the telephone number on his palm. Thereafter, he went to one S.T.D. booth in Bhimashankar society and made a telephone call to the police station and informed them about the incident. PW 5 Rajesh was running the S.T.D. booth in Bhimashankar society. He has stated that on 15.6.2004, police had come to his S.T.D. booth. One person Manik Ingale (PW 2) was accompanying the police. Rajesh has stated that on the earlier day i.e. on 14.6.2004, Manik Ingale had come to this S.T.D. booth around 9.00 p.m. and he had telephoned Nerul Police Station from his S.T.D. booth. Thus, the fact that Manik Ingale had witnessed the incident and thereafter, informed the police is further corroborated by PW 5 Rajesh who stated that Manik made a telephone call to Nerul Police Station from his S.T.D. booth. 9. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution has relied on seizure of blood stained clothes which were on the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest. PW 3 panch witness Jadhav has deposed on this aspect. He has stated that the police arrested the appellant in his presence. 9. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution has relied on seizure of blood stained clothes which were on the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest. PW 3 panch witness Jadhav has deposed on this aspect. He has stated that the police arrested the appellant in his presence. The police also seized the blood stained clothes of the appellant. They were shirt, trouser, Bermuda, banyan and handkerchief. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized and sent to C.A. The C.A. report (Exh.44) shows that the clothes of the deceased were stained with blood of 'O' group which shows that the blood group of deceased was 'O'. The shirt, banyan and handkerchief of the appellant were stained with human blood and pant of the appellant was stained with blood of 'O' group. This shows that blood of the same group as that of the deceased was found on the pant of the appellant. This is an highly incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 10. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted deceased Sukhdevsingh with a knife and caused his death. This is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 8 Dr. Jain conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sukhdevsingh. On examination, he found the following injuries:- External Injuries: 1. Abrasion over right forehead above and parallel to eyebrow. Size 6 x 2 c.m. reddish; 2. Abrasion over right side of the face near maxillary region of size 3 x 2 c.m. reddish; 3. Stab injury over left chest of size 2.7 x 1 c.m. cavity deep situated at the distance of 3 c.m. below sternal notch and 4 c.m. lateral to mid-line, vertically placed lower angle acute, actively bleeding; 4. Incise wound over the left clavicular region of size 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep situated at the distance of 2.5 c.m. lateral to sterno clavicular (neck) joint margins clean cut; 5. Stab injury over right side of the neck 1 c.m. lateral to mid-line and 6.5 c.m. from sternal notch of size 2 x 1 c.m. directing downwards laterally 2 c.m. deep, margins clean cut; 6. Abrasion over right side of the abdomen in sub-coastal region antero laterally of size 8 x 7 c.m. reddish; 7. Stab injury over right side of the neck 1 c.m. lateral to mid-line and 6.5 c.m. from sternal notch of size 2 x 1 c.m. directing downwards laterally 2 c.m. deep, margins clean cut; 6. Abrasion over right side of the abdomen in sub-coastal region antero laterally of size 8 x 7 c.m. reddish; 7. Incise wound over right palm between web of thumb and index finger of size 1 x 0.5 c.m. skin deep, margins clean cut; 8. Incise wound over terminal phalynx of middle finger of right hand palmer aspect 1 x 0.5 c.m. skin deep, margins clean cut; 9. Incise wound over palmer aspect of right ring finger upper part of distal phalynx and middle portion of middle phalynx of little finger of size 1.5 x 0.7 c.m. bone deep; 10. Multiple abrasions over left leg below knee joint in a area of 7 x 4 c.m. reddish. Internal Injuries: 1. Hemorrhage under scalp over right parieto temporal posterior of size 8 x 5 c.m. reddish; 2. In thorax region walls showed injury in relation to injury No. 3 above; 3. Incise cut seen over upper 2/3 portion of second sternal cartilage on left side infiltration staining of blood seen over fractured margins. Pleura showed corresponding injury with injury No. 3 above. Cavity contains 1000 CC blood. left lung showed injury over upper lobe. According to Dr. Jain, all external and internal injuries are ante mortem injuries. External injury No. 3 is fatal injury and sufficient to cause death. Dr. Jain further opined that external injury Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were defensive injuries and stab injury and incise wound can be caused by sharp edged weapons and abrasions are possible by hitting against hard and rough surface. In the opinion of Dr. Jain, the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to stab injuries over chest. Thus, the medical evidence also fully supports the prosecution case. 11. Ms. Dandekar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant was the nephew of the deceased and as such being closely related to the deceased, the appellant would not commit the murder of his uncle Sukhdevsingh. She submitted that the appellant saw the deceased in an injured condition, hence, the appellant put the deceased in the backseat of the car and was taking him to the hospital when he was intercepted by the police and apprehended. She submitted that the appellant saw the deceased in an injured condition, hence, the appellant put the deceased in the backseat of the car and was taking him to the hospital when he was intercepted by the police and apprehended. However, on going through the evidence, we find that this defence raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be believed in view of the evidence of PW 2 Manik and PW 4 police constable Avhad. Manik has stated that on 14.6.2004, he was returning from Nerul, Navi Mumbai to Kolikopar on a scooter. Two boys working with Manik were accompanying him. They were all travelling triple seat on a scooter of Manik. On the service road, they witnessed a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.MH-04/N-8081. Manik stopped his scooter. They noticed two persons lying in nearby gutter. One person had worn black colour checks shirt on his person (appellant). Other person was an old person. The younger person wearing black checks shirt was lying on the body of the old person. The old person who was lying down was crying, "save me, save me". Manik asked the two persons what was going on. Thereupon, the youngster wearing black checks shirt got enraged and came towards them with a knife in his hand. Manik and others accompanying him got frightened and sat on the scooter and went away. This conduct on the part of the appellant militates against his innocence. 12. The evidence of PW 4 Police Constable Avhad also militates against the innocence of the appellant. Police Constable Avhad has stated that when they overtook the Maruti car and asked the driver to stop, the driver tried to speed away from there. In that attempt, the Maruti car dashed against the police jeep, however, they succeeded in stopping the Maruti car on right side of the road. The person who had informed them about the incident also followed them to the spot. The driver of the Maruti car tried to flee away from the spot. This conduct on the part of the appellant also shows his mens rea. If in fact the appellant was trying to save his injured uncle Sukhdevsingh, he would have stopped the Maruti car when the police told him to stop and he would not have tried to run away from the spot. Thus, we find no merit in this submission. 13. Ms. If in fact the appellant was trying to save his injured uncle Sukhdevsingh, he would have stopped the Maruti car when the police told him to stop and he would not have tried to run away from the spot. Thus, we find no merit in this submission. 13. Ms. Dandekar submitted that no motive has been brought on record by the prosecution for the appellant to commit the murder of his uncle Sukhdevsingh. As far as this aspect is concerned, when there is an eye witness, motive pales into insignificance. Thereafter, it was submitted that the two pillion riders who were riding on the scooter with PW 2 Manik have not been examined. As far as this submission is concerned, it is the quality of the evidence which matters and not the quantity of the evidence. PW 2 Manik who is an eye witness to the incident has been examined and he has not been shaken in his cross-examination. We find his evidence to be trustworthy and reliable, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. We see no reason to discard the evidence of PW 2 Manik. The evidence of PW 2 Manik clearly shows that the appellant was assaulting deceased Sukhdevsingh with a knife. Even if no other witness/es were examined by the prosecution that would not shake the testimony of PW 2 Manik wherein he has stated that he witnessed the appellant assaulting deceased Sukhdevsingh with a knife. 14. On going through the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of his uncle Sukhdevsingh by assaulting him with a knife and caused his death. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 15. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison authorities and to the appellant who is in jail. 16. We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Ms. Rohini M. Dandekar at Rs. 5000/-.