JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - original accused against the judgment and order dated 4.1.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2010. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: "(a) Deceased Rakhamabai was the mother of Irappa and PW 6 Appasaheb. Rakhamabai's husband expired in the year 1981. After the death of husband of Rakhamabai, the appellant supported Rakhamabai and her family. After the death of the husband of Rakhamabai, Rakhamabai along with her children came to Nerul, Navi Mumbai and started residing in a zopadpatti. The appellant was also residing with Rakhamabai and her children. At that time, Appasaheb was about 6-7 years of age. Rakhamabai used to sell vegetables and fruits. Thereafter, Rakhamabai started residing in a room taken on rent from PW 1 Natha Todekar at Koparagav. She was residing in a room on the second floor of the premises owned by Natha. When Rakhamabai came to reside in the premises of Natha, the appellant went to his native place at Bahirungi, however, from time to time, the appellant used to visit Rakhamabai at Koparagav. (b) It is the prosecution case that when the appellant went to his native place at Bahirungi, Rakhamabai developed illicit relations with one Bhaiyya. About 4-5 days prior to the incident, the appellant came to the house of Rakhamabai and he was residing there. It is the prosecution case that the appellant came to know about the illicit relations of Rakhamabai with one Bhaiyya, and hence, on 19.7.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., the appellant assaulted Rakhamabai with a knife. Rakhamabai raised hue and cry which was heard by PW 2 Sidhamma who was residing in the room adjacent to the room of Rakhamabai. Sidhamma rushed to the spot. She saw the appellant assaulting Rakhamabai with a knife. Sidhamma tried to rescue Rakhamabai. While Sidhamma was trying to rescue Rakhamabai, Sidhamma received injuries with knife on her right hand. Meanwhile, PW 1 Natha, the landlord of Rakhamabai, came to the room of Rakhamabai. He saw Rakhamabai lying on the ground. Sidhamma rushed to the spot. She saw the appellant assaulting Rakhamabai with a knife. Sidhamma tried to rescue Rakhamabai. While Sidhamma was trying to rescue Rakhamabai, Sidhamma received injuries with knife on her right hand. Meanwhile, PW 1 Natha, the landlord of Rakhamabai, came to the room of Rakhamabai. He saw Rakhamabai lying on the ground. She had stab injuries on her person. Natha saw that the appellant Vithoba @ Vithal was in the room. The appellant was trying to run away, hence, Natha caught hold of the appellant and brought him to the ground floor where Natha was residing. Natha made inquiry with the appellant about the incident. Thereupon, the appellant told Natha that Rakhamabai had affair with one Bhaiyya, hence, the appellant had assaulted her. Natha then made a phone call to the police. Pursuant to the phone call made by Natha, police arrived at the spot. Natha then lodged F.I.R. Exh. 9. Thereafter, investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions." 2. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 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. 3. 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 Rakhamabai with a knife and caused her death. 4. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of PW 2 Sidhamma who is an eye witness to the incident. Sidhamma has stated that at the time of the incident, she along with her family was residing in the house of one Natha (PW 1) as a tenant. She was residing in the middle room on the second floor of the house of Natha and Rakhamabai was residing adjacent to her room. Sidhamma has stated that at the time of the incident, she along with her family was residing in the house of one Natha (PW 1) as a tenant. She was residing in the middle room on the second floor of the house of Natha and Rakhamabai was residing adjacent to her room. Rakhamabai was residing alone in the room. Sidhamma has further stated that since 4-5 days prior to the incident, the appellant came to reside in the house of Rakhamabai. On the day of the incident at about 11.00 p.m., Sidhamma was sleeping. Her husband had gone outside. She heard hue and cry of old lady, hence, she woke up and came out of the room. She then went to the room of Rakhamabai. She saw the appellant Vithal was assaulting Rakhamabai with a knife. She went to rescue Rakhamabai. While trying to rescue Rakhamabai, Sidhamma received injuries with knife on her right hand. Thereafter, the landlord Natha (PW 1), his wife and other neighbours came to the spot. All these persons caught hold of the appellant and made him sit. They noticed that Rakhamabai had died. Son of Rakhamabai came to the spot. Meanwhile the police also arrived at the spot. Sidhamma has identified Article 5 as the same knife with which she received injuries. 5. In addition to the ocular testimony of PW 2 Sidhamma, the prosecution is relying on the circumstance of extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 1 Natha. Natha was residing in Village Koparagav along with his wife and children. His house consisted of ground plus two storeys. Natha was residing on the first floor. On the ground floor, there were shops. On the second floor, there were three rooms in which tenants were residing. In one room, one Mannu Harwale was residing. In the second room, Jaggu was residing and in the third room, Rakhamabai (deceased) was residing. It may be noted that Jaggu is the husband of PW 2 Sidhamma. Natha has stated that Rakhamabai was selling vegetables and fruits. She was residing alone. Since 4-5 months before her death, she was residing in the room taken on rent from Natha. Rakhamabai had two sons but they were residing separately. Natha has further stated that the appellant was residing with Rakhamabai since 2-3 days prior to the incident. Natha has stated that Rakhamabai was selling vegetables and fruits. She was residing alone. Since 4-5 months before her death, she was residing in the room taken on rent from Natha. Rakhamabai had two sons but they were residing separately. Natha has further stated that the appellant was residing with Rakhamabai since 2-3 days prior to the incident. On the day of the incident, he had seen the appellant in the room of Rakhamabai. According to Natha, the incident took place on 19.7.2009 at about 11.00 to 11.30 p.m. At that time, he heard voice of lady crying out, hence, he immediately rushed to the room of Rakhamabai. He saw that Rakhamabai was lying on the ground and she had stab injuries on her person. The appellant Vithoba alias Vithal was in the room of Rakhamabai. The appellant was trying to run away, hence, Natha caught hold of the appellant. Natha inquired with the appellant about the incident thereupon, the appellant told Natha that Rakhamabai had affair with one Bhaiyya, hence, the appellant assaulted her. Natha then called the sons of Rakhamabai. He also informed the police on telephone. Within half an hour, the police came to the spot. Thereafter, Natha lodged F.I.R. 6. The evidence of PW 6 Appasaheb who was the son of the deceased and PW 1 Natha also shows the motive for the appellant to commit the crime. PW 6 Appasaheb has stated that Rakhamabai was his mother. He had one brother Irappa. Their father died in the year 1981. His mother Rakhamabai was selling vegetables and fruits. The appellant was from their native place Bahirungi. After the death of their father, Appasaheb, his brother Irappa, their mother Rakhamabai were residing together. After the death of their father, the appellant Vithoba supported Rakhamabai and her children. After the death of their father, they came to Nerul in Navi Mumbai and started residing in a zopadpatti. At that time, the appellant Vithoba was residing with them. When they came to Nerul, the age of Appasaheb was about 6-7 years. This shows that they came to reside at Nerul about 26 years prior to the incident. At that time, the appellant was residing with them. After Appasaheb got married, he started residing separately. His mother then started residing in a room taken on rent from Natha (PW 1). This shows that they came to reside at Nerul about 26 years prior to the incident. At that time, the appellant was residing with them. After Appasaheb got married, he started residing separately. His mother then started residing in a room taken on rent from Natha (PW 1). At that time, Vithoba went to their native place at Bahirungi. From time to time, the appellant used to visit their mother Rakhamabai at Koparagav. The evidence of PW 1 Natha shows that since 4-5 months prior to the incident, Rakhamabai started residing in a room taken on rent from him. Thus, the evidence of PW 6 Appasaheb and PW 1 Natha taken together shows that since Appasaheb was about 6-7 years old, the appellant was residing with them and he was supporting Rakhamabai and her children. Just 4-5 months prior to the incident, the appellant went to his native place at village Bahirungi. Thereafter, from time to time, the appellant was visiting Rakhamabai at Koparagav. The extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW 1 Natha shows that after the appellant went to his native place at Bahirungi, Rakhamabai developed illicit relations with some other person. The appellant came to know about this, hence, he assaulted her with a knife and caused her death. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2080 (S.C.)] held that an extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by Court. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Supreme Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 341 (S.C.)], held that: "29. There is no absolute rule that an extrajudicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extrajudicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC 105 , Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. - AIR 1959 SC 902 , Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41), Shiva Karan Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 262 and Mohd. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC 105 , Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. - AIR 1959 SC 902 , Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41), Shiva Karan Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 262 and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B., (2008) 15 SCC 449 ." The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 has held that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. We find the evidence of PW 1 Natha on the point of extra judicial confession to be trustworthy and reliable, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 7. In addition to the above evidence, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW 3 Dnyaneshwar Todekar who is the panch witness. This panch witness has stated about seizure of clothes of the appellant as well as seizure of knife from the appellant. Panch witness PW 4 Dnyaneshwar Pawar has deposed about seizure of clothes of the deceased. The clothes of the deceased, appellant and the knife were sent to C.A. As per C.A. report Exh. 30/C, the blood group of Rakhamabai was "A". The C.A. report Exh. 32/C shows that the clothes of the appellant, deceased and the knife were stained with blood of "A" group. It is pertinent to note that the blood group of the appellant is "O" which is seen from the C.A. report Exh. 31/C. Thus, the finding of blood of "A" group on the clothes of the appellant as well as the knife is a highly incriminating circumstance which goes against the appellant. It may be noted that the appellant has not furnished any explanation for finding of blood of "A" group on his clothes and on the knife seized from him. 8. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted Rakhamabai with a knife and caused her death. This is borne out by the medical evidence. PW 5 Dr. Naik conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Rakhamabai. 8. It is the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted Rakhamabai with a knife and caused her death. This is borne out by the medical evidence. PW 5 Dr. Naik conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Rakhamabai. On external examination, she noticed the following injuries:-- "1) Incised wound on the center of forehead 3 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/2 cm dried blood was present; 2) Two incised wounds behind left ear:-- a) 4 1/4 cm x 3 cm x 4 cm dried blood present; b) 1.5 cm x 0.12 cm x 0.12 cm, 1.5 cm below wound (a) and parallel to it, dried blood present; 3) Three incised wounds on left arm:-- a) 2.5 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm superficial into upper 1/3rd arm dried blood present; b) 3 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm superficial parallel to first wound dried blood present; c) 3 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm superficial perpendicular to first and second wounds in lower 1/3rd arm, dried blood present; 4) a) Incised wound in left second intra coastal space with oblique 6 cm x 2 cm x 8 cm. Towards lateral side, dried blood present; b) 3 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm deep, 3 cm lateral to left nipple incised wound, dried blood present; 5) Incised wound over left lumber region on lateral side near and 5 cm above left hip. Incised wound 5 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm subcutaneous deep. According to Dr. Naik, all the injuries were ante mortem and caused within 24 hours from the post mortem. Dr. Naik found following internal injuries:-- 1) Haemotoma 4 cm x 2 cm over the incised wound over forehead. Pleura on left side torn and penetrating into the left lung and then into left atrium, left side haemothorax. Left side lung was collapsed into the injury 4 cm incised wound seen with left side haemopericardium. In the opinion of Dr. Naik, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to stab injury penetrating heart and left lung and internal injury and external injury Nos. 4(a)(b) are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Naik further opined that external as well as internal injuries are caused due to sharp and cutting instrument." 9. Naik, the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to stab injury penetrating heart and left lung and internal injury and external injury Nos. 4(a)(b) are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. Naik further opined that external as well as internal injuries are caused due to sharp and cutting instrument." 9. On the same day, PW 2 Sidhamma Jaggu Naikodi and the appellant were sent by the Police to the hospital for medical examination. At the time of examination, patient Sidhamma gave history of assault by one Vitthal at 11 p.m. Accordingly, Dr. Naik issued injury certificate (Exh. 21). It may be noted that the name of the appellant is Vithoba Ningappa Talwar @ Vithal Koli. On examination of the appellant, Dr. Naik noticed incised wound over right hand middle aspect 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. According to Dr. Naik, the injury was caused by sharp object and nature of the injury was grievous and caused within 24 hours. This injury seen on the appellant is consistent with assault by him with knife. It appears that, the appellant while assaulting Rakhamabai with knife, sustained injuries on his hand. 10. On going through the record, we are of the opinion that the appellant committed the murder of Rakhamabai by assaulting her with a knife. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 11. Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail. We quantify legal fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee to the appointed Advocate Ms. Dandekar at Rs. 5,000/-.