JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The appellant was put to trial in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2010 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad for offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 324 & 447 of Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of B.P. Act. The learned trial judge vide impugned judgement and order of sentence dated 26.04.2011 convicted the appellant for offence punishable under sections 302,307, 324 & 447 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted him under section 135(1) of B.P. Act. The appellant is directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for sixty days for offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code while he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for thirty days under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant is also directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default simple imprisonment for fifteen days while he is directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, simple imprisonment for seven days under section 447 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief prosecution case against the appellant as unfolded during the trial is that the office of the complainant is situated above OBC Bank near his residential house in which the accused was doing carpentry work. As the accused had done furniture work at the house of the complainant for around ten days, he was familiar with the house. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused with an intention of robbery, trespassed the compound of the complainant's house at 2045 hours on 06.07.2009, hid and assaulted the deceased who was sitting on the swing at the said time. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused inflicted blows of his Rampuri knife on the chest, abdomen and throat of the deceased. It is further the case of the prosecution that at that time when the complainant - son of deceased tried to intervene to save the deceased, the accused also caused serious injuries on the complainant on his chest, palm of right hand and on the thumb of left hand. Both were taken to hospital wherein the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Both were taken to hospital wherein the deceased succumbed to his injuries. 2.1 A complaint was therefore lodged by complainant with Satellite police station and in pursuance thereof, FIR vide C.R. No. I - 574 of 2009 came to be registered. The investigation was taken up and after usual investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the appellant. The offences committed by the appellant was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) under Section 209 of the Code. Upon committal, the case came to be registered as Sessions Case No. 18 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. Charge vide Ex. 4 came to be framed against the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.2 The trial was initiated against the appellant and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses whose evidences have been read before us: P.W. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Ramanbhai Manilal 3 2 Chandubhai Desai 14 3 Manthanbhai Ketanbhai 18 4 Dharmendra Chinubhai 25 5 Dr. Jignasa Parikh 28 6 Ghanshyambhai Mistry 31 7 Dr. Saumil Merchant 32 8 Dr.Ketubhai Parekh 36 9 Jigneshbhai Indravadanbhai 41 10 Karnavbhai Kishorbhai 43 11 Sandiphai Manibhai 44 12 Amitbhai Desai 45 13 Mahendrasinh Govindsinh 46 14 Madhukant Vasani 48 15 Vikaramsinh Natvarsinh 59 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: Sr. Saumil Merchant 32 8 Dr.Ketubhai Parekh 36 9 Jigneshbhai Indravadanbhai 41 10 Karnavbhai Kishorbhai 43 11 Sandiphai Manibhai 44 12 Amitbhai Desai 45 13 Mahendrasinh Govindsinh 46 14 Madhukant Vasani 48 15 Vikaramsinh Natvarsinh 59 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: Sr. No. Name of Document Exhibit No. 1 Original complaint 42 2 Panchnama of clothes and physical condition of accused 15 3 Officer copy of yadi written to fill inquest Inquest panchnama 50 4 Inquest panchnama 13 5 Office copy of letter written for post mortem 34 6 Office copy of police report for death inquiry 35 7 P.M. Note 33 8 Medical certificate of deceased 37 9 Medical certificate of complainant 38 10 Office copy of yadi written for treatment of accused 58 11 Medical certificate of accused 29 12 Medical papers of accused 30 13 Officer copy of letter for adding section 302 of Indian Penal code 51 14 Panchnama pf place of offence 4 15 Office copy of letter written to FSL for making inquiry 52 16 Panchnama of blood sample of accused 26 17 Panchnama of blood sample of deceased and clothes of deceased and complainant 19 18 Original information given by RTO and letter written to RTO 47 19 Panchnama of blood sample of complainant 27 20 Office copy of dispatch entry 53 21 Original letter regarding receipt of muddamal at FSL 54 22 FSL letter 55 23 Serological report 56 2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the charges leveled against him by the impugned judgement and order. 3. We have heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - accused and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for respondent - State. Both the learned advocates have taken us through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. 4. Mr. 3. We have heard Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - accused and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for respondent - State. Both the learned advocates have taken us through the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. 4. Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the 313 statement of the appellant wherein the appellant had specifically explained that he was doing carpentry work under one Ghanshyambhai Mistry and that Ghanshyambhai had asked the appellant to inquire about the veneer which was not received. He has stated that therefore the appellant went to the house of the complainant and saw that the complainant and deceased were already injured. Therefore the appellant started shouting. Drawing attention to the said facts narrated in the 313 statement by the appellant, Mr. Thakore has stated that the same has been corroborated by the deposition of the complainant himself wherein he has admitted that due to non availability of veneer the work had stopped. He submitted that this clearly goes to show that only with the purpose of inquiry, the appellant had gone to the house of complainant and therefore the explanation and/or defence put forward by the appellant is probable. 4.1 Mr. Thakore submitted that there are number of inherent infirmities in the prosecution evidence and that in these circumstances the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. 5. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State has strongly supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and submitted that the same does not call for any interference by this Court. She has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the present appellant beyond doubt. 5.1 Ms. Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries sustained by the deceased which are described in column No. 17 of post mortem report coupled with the evidence of doctor and submitted that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were sufficient to cause death of the deceased and therefore the conviction of the appellant is just and proper. Shah has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries sustained by the deceased which are described in column No. 17 of post mortem report coupled with the evidence of doctor and submitted that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were sufficient to cause death of the deceased and therefore the conviction of the appellant is just and proper. She submitted that the accused had also sustained injuries in the scuffle as is evident from the medical reports of the accused which also proves his presence at the scene of offence and his involvement in the alleged crime. 6. We have gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence perused by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocates for both the sides. As per the latest decision of the Apex Court, we have appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence led before the trial court in its entirety but we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view than the one taken by the trial court. 7. So far as the contention of Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant with regard to the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is concerned, we can only say that we are unable to agree with the same. On behalf of the prosecution, around 15 witnesses have been examined but none of them have been declared hostile. P.W. 9 - Jisgneshbhai Indravadanbhai has been examined at Ex. 41. This witness has stated that he and his father being civil engineers were carrying on the business of construction. He submitted that the ground floor of the building owned by them was rented out to OBC bank whereas their office was to be constructed on the first and second floor. He has deposed that the work of furniture was given to one Ghanshyambhai Mistry who had sent his artisans - Hiteshbhai, Chakabhai and the accused for work. He has deposed that these artisans would come to his house at various times for handing over the keys. 7.1 P.W. 9 has further stated that on 06.07.2009 at quarter to 9, while his father was sitting on the swing near verandah of the house, he and his mother were inside the house. He has deposed that these artisans would come to his house at various times for handing over the keys. 7.1 P.W. 9 has further stated that on 06.07.2009 at quarter to 9, while his father was sitting on the swing near verandah of the house, he and his mother were inside the house. At that time, after hearing the shouts of his father, he rushed outside and saw that the present accused was inflicting knife blows on the abdomen of his father and therefore he caught the accused. In the scuffle, the accused inflicted knife blows on the left side of the chest of this witness and therefore he pushed the accused as a result of which the accused fell down. This witness has further stated that after holding the accused's right hand which held the knife, he sat on the accused's chest but the accused was trying to escape. He has further stated that therefore he also sustained injuries on his palm and thumb and during that period P.W. 10 - Karnav - the nephew of this witness came there. P.W. 9 asked him to take knife from the hand of the accused and accordingly Karnav took the knife and put it in the corner of the verandah and also caught the accused. 7.2 P.W. 9 further stated that he started bleeding profusely and his father was also lying in a pool of blood. He has stated that during this time, P.W. 11 - Sandipbhai Manibhai came there along with other neighbours and took them to hospital. It is true that this witness has admitted that the work of furniture was stopped due to lack of veneer before two days of incident and that the said work was to be started after veneer was received. 7.3 P.W. 10 - Karnav Kishorebhai has been examined vide Ex. 43. This witness has completely corroborated the say of the complainant and the complaint. This witness is the nephew of the complainant. He has stated that at around 2045 hours on 06.07.2009 his mother received a phone call from his grandmother who had in turn informed that his grandfather was injured. 43. This witness has completely corroborated the say of the complainant and the complaint. This witness is the nephew of the complainant. He has stated that at around 2045 hours on 06.07.2009 his mother received a phone call from his grandmother who had in turn informed that his grandfather was injured. This witness has stated that thus he and his father rushed towards the house of the complainant and on reaching there, this witness saw that his grandfather was lying near the swing and the complainant - his maternal uncle was sitting on someone and the complainant asked this witness to snatch the knife from his hand. He has stated that as he looked at the person, he saw the accused who used to work in their office. He has stated that as the accused did not release the knife, this witness gave 2 -3 fist blows on his face and thereafter the knife was released by the accused. Meanwhile, this witness's father and other neighbours caught the accused. P.W. 10 has been extensively cross examined by the prosecution. However, nothing incriminating has been revealed in the cross examination as may raise suspicion about the facts of his deposition. 7.4 Similarly, P.W. 11 - Sandipbhai Manilal who came to the place after P.W. 10 has been examined vide Ex. 44. This witness has also corroborated the facts narrated by the complainant as well as P.W. 10. P.W. 12 - Amitbhai Desai is the autorickshaw driver who took the injured as well as deceased to hospital and this witness has also supported the prosecution case. On a conjoint reading of the evidence of the complainant, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and other witnesses, we are of the view that there is no major infirmity or variation in their evidence. The presence of the accused at the scene of offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 8. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, it shall be relevant to go through the evidence of P.W. 5 - Dr. Jignasha Parikh who has been examined vide Ex. 28. This witness has treated the eye of the accused at 1230 hours on 07.07.2009. This witness has stated that while she was on duty at Nagri Hospital pm 07.07.2009, the accused was brought for treatment of his eye. Jignasha Parikh who has been examined vide Ex. 28. This witness has treated the eye of the accused at 1230 hours on 07.07.2009. This witness has stated that while she was on duty at Nagri Hospital pm 07.07.2009, the accused was brought for treatment of his eye. She has stated that the accused gave history that the injury was sustained in his left eye due to accidental blow of hand. She has stated that there was a swelling on his eyelash of left eye and the eye had turned black and blood had coagulated in the eye. She has stated that stitches were also taken on his cheeks. The relevant medical certificate and the case papers have been produced vide Ex. 29 & Ex. 30. This witness has admitted that if fist blow is given on an eye of any person such kind of injury can be sustained. 8.1 P.W. 8 - Dr. Ketubhai Parekh is the medical officer who has been examined vide Ex. 36. This witness has stated that the deceased was brought for treatment at about 08.30 pm on 06.07.2009. This witness has stated that the patient had sustained stab wounds on upper part of right chest, lower part of left side of abdomen from which organs of abdomen had come out, on the left side of throat, left shoulder and also on the chin. He stated that the left leg of deceased was also twisted abnormally and a fracture was found. The deceased was therefore operated on the abdomen and throat. He has stated that the deceased died at 02.30 am on 07.07.2009. He has stated the injuries were very serious and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the said injuries were possible by way of muddamal knife. 8.2 P.W. 8 had also treated the complainant who had given history of stab wound. This witness has stated that there was a stab wound measuring 3 x 2 cm on the left side of the chest and also many abrasions on the wrist and fingers and on the right hand. He has stated that such injury was also possible by way of muddamal knife and that the injuries were so serious that the death could be possible if emergency treatment was not given. He has produced case papers of both patients vide Ex. 39 & Ex. 40. 9. He has stated that such injury was also possible by way of muddamal knife and that the injuries were so serious that the death could be possible if emergency treatment was not given. He has produced case papers of both patients vide Ex. 39 & Ex. 40. 9. Considering the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has completely proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. P.W. 7 - Dr. Saumil Merchant is the medical officer who conducted post mortem of the deceased. This witness has been examined vide Ex. 32. He has stated that the death of the deceased occurred due to shock because of stab wound sustained by him and these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 10. Another important link that has a bearing on the case is that the clothes of the appellant which he had worn at the time of incident and seized during the course of investigation contained blood stains on them which were sent for serological analysis and as per the serological report the blood group found on these clothes match with blood group of complainant. Even the muddamal knife which was found from the scene of incident and sent for FSL investigation contained blood stains, blood group of which remained undetermined. The panchnamas of the place of offence as well as physical condition of the accused have also been supported by the panch witnesses. 11. We are of the view that as the accused had assaulted the deceased on his vital part which has been proved by the panchnamas on record and other witnesses, the accused had come with an intention to commit robbery. He was armed with a Rampuri knife having 6 inch handle and 5.5 inch blade which had a sharp edge on one side and is pointed from the front side. It is required to be noted that the accused had come with such a deadly weapon and seeing the deceased on the swing, he gave blows on the deceased on his vital part of body such as abdomen and chest which was sufficient to cause death. 12. It is required to be noted that the accused had come with such a deadly weapon and seeing the deceased on the swing, he gave blows on the deceased on his vital part of body such as abdomen and chest which was sufficient to cause death. 12. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was present at the scene of offence and as per the medical evidence available on the record it is clear that the injuries inflicted by the appellant was on vital part of the body. Going by the serological report, injury certificate, evidence of witnesses, we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. The weight of evidence against the appellant is so culpable that we are unable to agree with the arguments put forth by the learned advocate for the appellant. We do not find any substance in the appeal. Learned advocate for the appellant is not in a position to point out any cogent evidence or circumstance so as to enable this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the trial court. 13. However, in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah v. State of Assam reported in JT 2013 (10) SC 373 has held as under: "15. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that life imprisonment means imprisonment for whole of life subject to the remission power granted under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India. [Vide Life Convict @ Khoka Prasanta Sen v. B.K. Srivastava & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 425 , Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294 , Sangeet and Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 , Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 764 , Chhote Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 8 SCR 239, Mulla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508, Maru Ram v. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 1 SCC 107 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Others (1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600 ]. 16. (1981) 1 SCC 107 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh & Others (1976) 3 SCC 470 and Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600 ]. 16. In view of the clear decisions over decades, the argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant-accused is unsustainable, at the same time, we are not restricting the power of executive as provided in the Constitution of India. For adequate reasons, it is for the said authorities to exercise their power in an appropriate case." 14. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant - original accused under Sections 302, 307, 324 & 447 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2010 is confirmed. The amount of fine and imprisonment in default of fine is also maintained. The period of detention is also given set off. However, life imprisonment as awarded by the trial court would not be till last breath and the case of the appellant may be reviewed by the appropriate authority after 20 years of his serving sentence. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. R & P to be sent back forthwith.