JUDGMENT : V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2013. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC. For the offence under Sections 302 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to R.I. for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.I. for three months and for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default, R.I. for one month. The learned Sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Sudhir was the husband of PW-1 Rekha. The appellant was the son of Sudhir and Rekha. Sudhir, Rekha and their son i.e. the appellant were residing in Tata Colony in Mulund (E), Mumbai. Rekha had taken voluntary retirement from her service in July 2003. Her husband Sudhir who was working in Reserve Bank of India had taken voluntary retirement in November 2003. The appellant was educated upto B.Com. Since December 2011, the appellant was not doing any work. He was addicted to drinking liquor since three years prior to the incident. The appellant used to demand money from his mother and father for drinking liquor. (b) The appellant was 31 years old at the time of the incident. The incident occurred in the night between 21.9.2012 and 22.9.2012. On 21.9.2012 at about 11.30 p.m. Sudhir was sitting in the hall watching T.V. His wife Rekha was resting in the bedroom. At that time, the appellant came from outside and started demanding money from Rekha saying that he wanted money for his expenses and also for drinking liquor. Rekha refused to give him money. Thereupon, the appellant told her that he will demand money from his father. The appellant went in the hall and demanded money from his father. His father Sudhir refused to give him money. Then the appellant came back to Rekha and told her to serve him food. Rekha served him dinner. The appellant ate his food in anger. Thereafter, Rekha and Sudhir went to the bedroom to sleep. The door of the bedroom was open. His father Sudhir refused to give him money. Then the appellant came back to Rekha and told her to serve him food. Rekha served him dinner. The appellant ate his food in anger. Thereafter, Rekha and Sudhir went to the bedroom to sleep. The door of the bedroom was open. (c) At about 00.45 Hrs. the appellant came in the bedroom and sat on the stomach of his father Sudhir. Rekha tried to remove the appellant. At that time, sharp tip of the scissor which was in the hand of the appellant caused injury to the hand of Rekha. Rekha told her son i.e. the appellant not to do anything. At that time, Sudhir went in the hall. Rekha tried to stop the appellant from going into the hall. The appellant pushed her and followed his father Sudhir into the hall. Rekha also went to the hall. At that time, she saw scuffle going on between her son i.e. the appellant and her husband Sudhir. She saw Sudhir falling down. At that time, the appellant had a scissor in his hand. He inflicted blow with scissor on the left side of the throat of Sudhir. Therefore, Rekha went to the house of a neighbour Mr. Sonavane (PW-6) to call him. By the time, she came back, she saw her husband was lying in a pool of blood in the hall. PW-6 Mr. Sonavane called the Secretary of the society - Mr. Girap (PW-3) on phone. Mr. Girap came to the flat of Rekha. He informed the police on the phone. The police came to the spot. Police took Sudhir to Veer Savarkar Hospital. There the Doctor declared him dead on arrival. The police seized the scissor which was lying on the kitchen platform near the sink. The FIR of Rekha came to be recorded which is at Exh. 15. Thereafter, investigation commenced. The appellant came to be arrested. At the time of arrest, the clothes on his person were found stained with blood. They came to be seized under panchnama Exh.32. (d) The dead body of Sudhir was sent for postmortem. PW-10 Dr. Vathore conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sudhir. According to Dr. Vathore, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock with multiple stab injuries on the neck. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. (d) The dead body of Sudhir was sent for postmortem. PW-10 Dr. Vathore conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sudhir. According to Dr. Vathore, the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock with multiple stab injuries on the neck. 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-original accused under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC. The appellant 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 counsel 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 his father Sudhir with scissor on the neck and caused his death. 5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the ocular evidence of PW-1 Rekha. Rekha was the wife of deceased Sudhir. Rekha and Sudhir were the parents of the appellant. Rekha has stated that she and her husband had taken voluntary retirement in the year 2003. Her son Atul i.e. the appellant had studied upto B.Com. Since December 2011, her son was not doing any work. He was addicted to drinking liquor since three years prior to the incident. He used to demand money from her as well as from her husband. 6. Rekha has stated that on 21.9.2012 at about 11.30 p.m., her husband Sudhir was sitting in the hall watching T.V. She was resting in the bedroom. At that time, Atul came from outside and started demanding money from her saying that he wanted money for his expenses and also for drinking liquor. She refused to give him money. Thereupon, Atul told her that he will demand money from his father. Atul went in the hall and demanded money from his father. His father Sudhir refused to give him money. She refused to give him money. Thereupon, Atul told her that he will demand money from his father. Atul went in the hall and demanded money from his father. His father Sudhir refused to give him money. Then Atul came back to Rekha and told her to serve him food. Rekha served him dinner. He ate his food in anger. Thereafter, she and Sudhir went to the bedroom to sleep. The door of the bedroom was open. 7. Rekha has further stated that at about 00.45 Hrs. Atul came in the bedroom and sat on the stomach of his father Sudhir. She tried to remove Atul. At that time, sharp tip of the scissor which was in the hand of Atul caused injury to her hand. She told her son not to do anything. At that time, Sudhir went in the hall. Rekha tried to stop Atul from going into the hall. Atul pushed her and followed his father Sudhir into the hall. She also went to the hall. At that time, she saw scuffle going on between her son i.e. the appellant and her husband Sudhir. She saw Sudhir falling down. At that time, Atul had a scissor in his hand. He inflicted blow with scissor on the left side of the throat of Sudhir. Therefore, she went to the house of their neighbour Mr. Sonavane (PW-6) to call him. By the time, she came back, she saw her husband was lying in a pool of blood in the hall. PW-6 Mr. Sonavane called the Secretary of the society - Mr. Girap (PW-3) on phone. Mr. Girap came to her flat. He informed the police on the phone. The police came to the spot. Police took Sudhir to Veer Savarkar Hospital. There the Doctor declared him dead on arrival. The police seized the scissor which was lying on the kitchen platform near the sink. The FIR of Rekha came to be recorded which is at Exh.15. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of Rekha so as to cause us to disbelieve her evidence. We find her evidence to be natural and truthful, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 8. In addition to the ocular evidence of PW-1 Rekha, the prosecution has relied on the circumstance of extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-2 Anil and PW-3 Rupesh. We find her evidence to be natural and truthful, hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same. 8. In addition to the ocular evidence of PW-1 Rekha, the prosecution has relied on the circumstance of extra judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-2 Anil and PW-3 Rupesh. PW-2 Anil was the paternal uncle of the appellant. He has stated that the appellant was addicted to drinking liquor. The appellant was not doing any job. The appellant was demanding money from his parents for pursuing his addiction of drinking liquor and for all his expenses. Anil and his brother tried to persuade the appellant not to drink liquor, however, the appellant did not listen to them. Anil has further stated that on 22.9.2012 at about 1.15 a.m. he received a phone call from the appellant. The appellant informed him on the phone that he had killed his father and that Anil should rush to their house, hence, Anil rushed to the house of his brother Sudhir by 2.00 a.m. He saw his brother Sudhir lying in a pool of blood and he was dead. Neigbours had gathered at the spot. 9. The next witness who has deposed about extra judicial confession made by the appellant is PW-3 Rupesh Girap. Rupesh Girap was the secretary of the society in which deceased Sudhir and his family including the appellant were residing. Sudhir has stated that at about 1.00 a.m. his father woke him up and told him that there was telephone call for him on the intercom, hence, Rupesh took the phone call on the intercom. The phone call was from PW-6 Santosh Sonawane. Santosh Sonawane told him to immediately come to the 7th floor. Rupesh Girap then went to the 7th floor. From the door of the lift, he saw PW-1 Rekha was crying and shouting that Atul (appellant) had killed her husband. He saw that the door of the flat was open. He saw the dead body of the appellant's father Sudhir lying in a pool of blood. Rupesh asked the appellant how this had happened whereupon the appellant replied that he had murdered his father and somebody needs to inform the police. Then, Rupesh Girap went to the flat of PW-6 Santosh Sonawane on the 7th floor and from there, he called PW-4 Nitin Joshi who was the Chairman of the society. Rupesh asked the appellant how this had happened whereupon the appellant replied that he had murdered his father and somebody needs to inform the police. Then, Rupesh Girap went to the flat of PW-6 Santosh Sonawane on the 7th floor and from there, he called PW-4 Nitin Joshi who was the Chairman of the society. Rupesh Girap then called the police and within sometime, the police arrived at the spot. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 Anil Zemse and PW-3 Rupesh Girap shows that the appellant made an extra judicial confession to them that he had murdered his father. 10. That the appellant made extra judicial confession to PW-3 Rupesh Girap is corroborated by the evidence of PW-6 Santosh Sonawane. Santosh Sonawane was the neighbour of the appellant. He was residing on the same floor as the appellant and his family. Santosh Sonawane has stated that on 21.9.2012 at 12.55 a.m. he heard ringing of his door bell, hence, he got up from his sleep and opened the door. He found PW-1 Rekha Zemse standing in front of his door. She was crying and shouting that the appellant had killed her husband. Santosh Sonawane immediately went with her to her flat. He saw Sudhir Zemse lying in a pool of blood. He saw the appellant Atul standing nearby. Santosh Sonawane got frightened, hence, he immediately called PW-3 Rupesh Girap who was the Secretary of their society. Within a short time, Rupesh Girap came there. The appellant informed Rupesh Girap that he had murdered his father. Then Rupesh Girap informed the police. Thus, the evidence of Santosh Sonawane shows that when PW-3 Rupesh Girap came there, the appellant told Rupesh that he had murdered his father and somebody needs to inform the police. 11. The next circumstance the prosecution is relying on is that when the appellant was arrested immediately after the incident, the clothes on his person were found blood stained. These clothes came to be seized by the police and sent to Chemical Analyzer. The clothes were found stained with blood of ‘A’ group. Panch witness PW-11 Gajanan Dhaigude has stated that on 22.9.2012, he was called for arrest panchnama of the appellant. The appellant was present in the police station. The police arrested the appellant in his presence and also seized the clothes on his person. The clothes were found stained with blood of ‘A’ group. Panch witness PW-11 Gajanan Dhaigude has stated that on 22.9.2012, he was called for arrest panchnama of the appellant. The appellant was present in the police station. The police arrested the appellant in his presence and also seized the clothes on his person. PW-9 PSI Shevate has stated that on 22.9.2012 at about 1.12, he received a phone call that one boy had killed his father in Tata Colony. He went to the flat and found one person lying in a pool of blood. The complainant lady and the accused who was her son were present. PW-9 Shevate recorded the statement of the lady i.e. FIR which is at Exh.15. From the spot, he seized a scissor. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant and seized his clothes under panchnama Exh.32. These clothes were sent to C.A. The C.A. report shows that underwear, lungi and baniyan of the deceased were stained with blood of ‘A’ group. From this, it can be inferred that the blood group of the deceased was ‘A’ group. The T-Shirt, half pant and the baniyan of the appellant were also stained with blood of ‘A’ group. This is a strong incriminating circumstance against the appellant. That the clothes belonged to the appellant has been stated by PW-1 Rekha, panch witness PW-11 Gajanan and PW-9 PSI Shevate. 12. That Sudhir died a homicidal death is brought out in the evidence of PW-1 Rekha and PW-10 Dr. Vathore who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Sudhir. Dr. Vathore has stated that he found 11 injuries on the dead body of Sudhir. 9 injuries were on the neck. Out of them, 7 injuries on the neck were stab injuries on the left side of the neck. Dr. Vathore had stated that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock with multiple stab injuries on the neck. In the opinion of Dr. Vathore, the injuries found on the dead body were possible due to repeated blows by the scissor (Article 1). Dr. Vathore has clearly stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the medical evidence further corroborates the prosecution case. 13. Mrs. In the opinion of Dr. Vathore, the injuries found on the dead body were possible due to repeated blows by the scissor (Article 1). Dr. Vathore has clearly stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the medical evidence further corroborates the prosecution case. 13. Mrs. Farhana Shah, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that even if it is assumed that the appellant committed the murder of his father by assaulting him with the scissor, the case would not fall under Section 302 of IPC and it would fall under Section 304-II or at the most Section 304-I of IPC. She placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagtar Singh @ Jagga @ Ganja vs. State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2009, judgment dated 25.1.2012. She pointed out that in the said case also, blows were given with knife on the vital parts of the deceased, however, the Delhi High Court converted the conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304-I of IPC. We have carefully perused the said decision. In the said case, it is seen that quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the appellant. First, the deceased had slapped the appellant, thereafter the appellant had assaulted the deceased. Thus, it appears that benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC was given to the appellant in the case of Jagtar Singh. In the present case, Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is not at all applicable. There was no quarrel at all between the appellant and the deceased. In fact, the deceased and his wife had gone to sleep in the bedroom. After sometime, the appellant came and sat on the stomach of his father i.e. Sudhir. The appellant was holding scissor in his hand at that time. Thus, it is not the case of sudden quarrel, therefore, this decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. Thereafter, Mrs. Shah placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635 . She placed reliance on this decision to point out the factors required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. 14. Thereafter, Mrs. Shah placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635 . She placed reliance on this decision to point out the factors required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. She placed reliance on paragraph 23 of the said decision wherein it is observed as under:- These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under: (a) Motive or previous enmity. (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment. (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury. (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days. (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury. (f) The age and general health condition of the accused. (g) Whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight. (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted. (i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused. (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock. (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused. (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations. (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? 15. As far as factor (a) is concerned, it is seen that the appellant had motive to commit the murder of his father Sudhir. The motive was that his father had refused to give him money to drink liquor and for his other expenses. Thus, this cannot be a factor to hold that it is a lesser offence and to award lesser punishment. 16. As far as factor (b) is concerned, the incident has not taken place on the spur of the moment. After his father and mother refused to give him money for liquor and other expenses, the appellant told his mother to serve him food. 16. As far as factor (b) is concerned, the incident has not taken place on the spur of the moment. After his father and mother refused to give him money for liquor and other expenses, the appellant told his mother to serve him food. Thereafter, the appellant had dinner. Thereafter, Sudhir and his wife Rekha went to the bedroom to sleep. At about 00.45 a.m., the appellant came to the bedroom and sat on the stomach of his father Sudhir. At that time, the appellant had a scissor in his hand. Thereafter, the incident has taken place, hence factor (b) also is not attracted in the present case. 17. As far as factor (c) is concerned, the fact that the appellant had caused 9 injuries on the neck of his father with the scissor out of which 7 injuries are stab injuries, shows that he had intention and full knowledge that his act would cause the death of his father. Thus, this ground is not available as a mitigating circumstance. 18. As far as factor (d) is concerned, the death of the deceased has taken place on the spot and it is not a case that the victim died after several days. Thus, this ground also is not available in the present case. 19. As far as factor (e) is concerned, if we take the gravity, dimension and nature of injuries in the present case which are 11 in number, 9 of them are on the vital part that is neck and out of 9, 7 are stab injuries on the neck. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case for reducing the sentence. 20. Factor (f) speaks of the age and general health condition of the accused. In the present case, the general health condition of the appellant is good. As far as age is concerned, the appellant was about 31 years of age at the time of the incident. Thus, it cannot be said that he was of very young age to get any benefit. 21. As far as factor (g) is concerned, it is not the case that the appellant committed the murder of his father without premeditation or in a sudden fight, hence, he cannot get any benefit. 22. Factor (h) speaks of nature and size of weapon and the force with which the blow was inflicted. The weapon was a deadly weapon i.e. scissor. 22. Factor (h) speaks of nature and size of weapon and the force with which the blow was inflicted. The weapon was a deadly weapon i.e. scissor. The force with which the blow was inflicted is seen from the fact that out of 9 injuries on vital part, 7 injuries were stab injuries. It is further seen that the deceased died on the spot due to the injuries inflicted by the appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be held to be a mitigating factor. 23. As far as factor (i) and (k) are concerned, no doubt, the appellant did not have a criminal background or adverse history, however, that by itself cannot be the only ground to reduce the sentence looking to the other facts and circumstances of this case. 24. As far as factor (j) is concerned, PW-10 Dr. Vathore has clearly stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, hence, the appellant cannot get the benefit of factor (j). 25. As far as factor (l) is concerned, in fact, the incident occurred within the family members that is the appellant committed murder of his father (as his father did not give him money to drink liquor), hence, it has to be held to be an aggravating factor and not a mitigating factor, hence, the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the same. 26. The last factor i.e. (m) speaks about the conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. It specifically states that whether the accused had taken the injured to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment. In the present case, in fact the appellant did not take any steps to see that the injured that is his father was immediately taken to the hospital to ensure that he gets proper medical treatment. Thus, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant in the present case is not such that it would help in reducing the sentence. We may state that the present case does not fall in any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC or any exception under the Indian Penal Code. The appellant did the act with full knowledge as well as full intention that his father should die. In such case, it is not possible to accept the submission of Mrs. We may state that the present case does not fall in any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC or any exception under the Indian Penal Code. The appellant did the act with full knowledge as well as full intention that his father should die. In such case, it is not possible to accept the submission of Mrs. Shah that the appellant's case would fall under Section 304-II or 304-I of IPC. 27. On going through the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, hence, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.