JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original accused challenging the judgement dated 18.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution version was that accused Gordhanbhai @ Gilu Badshah had a love affair with one girl Lata, aged about 16 years residing in the same neighbourhood. On the date of the incident i.e. on 26.09.2007, in the late evening hours, Lata had gone to attend bhajan programme organized in the nearby temple along with his sister Kailash and other family members. At that time, the accused tried to talk to Lata, who, for some reason, was not interested. It appears that, after a brief exchange of words, the accused stabbed Lata several times with his knife. Lata's sister Kailash, the complainant, when tried to intervene, she also received injuries. Lata was rushed to a nearby hospital from where she was sent for further treatment where she died. A charge was, therefore, framed against the accused at Exh 10 for offences punishable under sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgement, convicted the accused for the offences under sections 302 and 324 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively for such offences. Fines were also imposed. This judgement, the accused has challenged in the present appeal. 3. We may record the gist of evidence. Kailash Ratilal Makwana, PW 14, Exh 42, sister of the deceased Lata, was an eyewitness and also the first informant. She deposed that she lived with her parents, brothers and sisters in the quarters near Chemical Lines in Dhrangadhra. She was working as a labourer in Dhrangadhra Chemicals. Her duty would be over at 7:00 in the evening. On 26.09.2007, she left her factory at 7:15. At that time, her sister Lata, another sister Asha, brother Bharat and Gauri, her neighbour, were going to a temple for darshan. She also joined them. When they were standing outside after completing the darshan, the accused was standing there. He told Lata to go with him for talking. Lata, however, refused saying that she did not want to talk with him. Lata also abused him. She also joined them. When they were standing outside after completing the darshan, the accused was standing there. He told Lata to go with him for talking. Lata, however, refused saying that she did not want to talk with him. Lata also abused him. Accused caught her hand insisting that he wanted to speak with her. He then gave a knife blow on her stomach. Lata started shouting. When she went there trying to save Lata, she received one blow of the knife on the right hand. The blow was given by the accused. After this, the accused gave a blow on the neck to Lata. She started shouting for help upon which, the accused ran away. Other people including her neighbour Heydarbhai Miyana came there and put Lata in the jeep. Lata and the witness were taken to the Government hospital Dhrangadhra. Since Lata's condition was serious, the doctor advised them to take her to Surendranagar Hospital. Her parents took Lata to Surendranagar. Her complaint was registered at the police station. At the hospital, the doctor had asked her about the incident and she had said that it was Gilu Badshah who had caused the injuries to her and her sister. She further stated that Lata would bring her lunch in a tiffin to her factory. Accused Gilu Badshah was also working there as a labourer. He and Lata therefore, had a love affair. Lata's engagement had been done with one Janakbhai Bhurabhai of Ahmedabad. Gilu Badshah was not happy about this. According to this witness, the reason for the assault was that Lata had severed the relations with the accused. She identified the accused before the Court, the clothes worn by her and Lata and the murder weapon. In the cross examination, she stated that the complaint was lodged at about 10 O'clock at night. She agreed that a programme of bhajan of popular singer was organized at the temple and many people had gathered to attend the programme. She denied that, at the place, where the incident took place, there was no light. She agreed that she and her sister Lata had gone to answer the nature's call to a place where some cars were parked. She denied that she reached after the assault on Lata was over. She denied that she had never gone to the hospital at Dhrangadhra nor had taken any treatment there. She agreed that she and her sister Lata had gone to answer the nature's call to a place where some cars were parked. She denied that she reached after the assault on Lata was over. She denied that she had never gone to the hospital at Dhrangadhra nor had taken any treatment there. She was confronted with certain additions she made in the deposition as compared to her complaint. However, these were insignificant minor additional details which, in any case, in our opinion, the law does not require the first informant to include in the FIR. 4. Substantially on the same line she had given the complaint before the police which was produced at Exh 43. In the complaint also, she had referred to her going to the temple along with her sister and other family members where Gilu Badshah had assaulted her sister with a knife and also to herself after a brief exchange of words. 5. Lalitbhai Govindbhai Makwana, PW 17, Exh 58 the cousin brother of the deceased had also gone to the temple to attend the bhajan programme. When he was outside the temple, he heard the shouts and rushed to the place and saw that Kailash and Lata who were on one side and the accused on the other side were scuffling. The accused had a knife. He saw the accused giving blows to Lata on the stomach and on the neck. He also referred to the arrival of Heydarbhai and others upon which, the accused ran away. 6. Kusumben @ Aasha Ratilal Makwana, PW 20, Exh 68 was not an eyewitness but reached the scene of the incident soon after the assault took place. She was aged about 13 years at the time of incident. After putting general questions to her to ensure that she was able to give rational answers, the learned Judge proceeded to record her deposition on oath. She deposed that at the time of the incident, she was studying in 8th Standard. She, her sister Lata, her brother Bharat and neighbour Gauri had gone to the temple where bhajan programme was organized. They left at about 7 O'clock. Near Dhrangadhra Chemical factory, they met their sister Kailash who also joined them. After doing darshan in the temple when they were standing outside, the accused Gilu Badshah came there and called Lata. She, her sister Lata, her brother Bharat and neighbour Gauri had gone to the temple where bhajan programme was organized. They left at about 7 O'clock. Near Dhrangadhra Chemical factory, they met their sister Kailash who also joined them. After doing darshan in the temple when they were standing outside, the accused Gilu Badshah came there and called Lata. Her sisters Kailash and Lata went there on the pretext of going to answer the nature's call. She, Gauri and her brother Bharat stood near the temple. After sometime, there was commotion in the direction where the sisters had gone. She, Gauri and Bharat ran there and saw Lata lying on the ground profusely bleeding. Accused was standing next to her. He had a knife in his hand. He ran away. Soon after that Lata was taken in Heydarbhai's jeep to the Government hospital. It was Kailash who told her that Gilu Badshah had stabbed Lata. In the cross-examination she denied that it was dark when the incident had taken place. The defence, in fact, suggested that the accused was present near the temple in the first part of the incident and further suggested that both the sisters Lata and Kailash were together when the incident took place. From the nature of cross-examination, it can be gathered that the defence did not seriously dispute the presence of the accused near the temple nor seriously challenged the prosecution version that the two sisters Lata and Kailash were together when Lata was assaulted. 7. Gauriben Shankarbhai Somabhai, PW 19, Exh 65 was the another person who had gone to the temple with the deceased. According to the prosecution, she had reached the place of incident immediately. She however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. 8. We may recall, the witness had referred to one Heydarbhai Hussainbhai Miyana, who had also reached the spot immediately and it was he, who had helped injured Lata being shifted to a hospital in his jeep. He was cross examined as PW18, Exh 61. He deposed that he was plying utility jeep in the Dhrangadhra Chemical factory area. On the night of the incident, he had taken the family to the temple for darshan. He heard the shouts of somebody getting hurt. He went there and saw that one lady had got injured. He had taken the lady in his jeep to the Dhrangadhra hospital. On the night of the incident, he had taken the family to the temple for darshan. He heard the shouts of somebody getting hurt. He went there and saw that one lady had got injured. He had taken the lady in his jeep to the Dhrangadhra hospital. From this stage, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. He did however, confirm that it was he, who had carried the injured Lata to the Government hospital at Dhrangadhra. 9. Dr. Deepak Krushnamurari, PW 13, Exh 34 had treated the two injured sisters at Government hospital, Dhrangadhra. He had recorded several stab injuries on Lata. He deposed that such injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged instrument such as muddamal article 14, the knife, which was shown to him. He advised that the patient be taken to Surendranagar Government hospital for further treatment. He had also treated Kailash who had injury on the right palm and had given the history of being injured by Gordhanbhai i.e. the accused. He had produced the medical papers which carried the above history. Regarding the injuries to Lata also, he had recorded such a history. He also mentioned that Lata was conscious and able to speak when she was brought there. However, it is not clear as to who had given such history and he agreed in the cross-examination that in the medical papers, he had not recorded that the patient was conscious and was able to speak. In fact, he agreed that when the patient was brought to the hospital, she was unconscious. We would, therefore, not attach any importance to the history recorded in the case papers of deceased Lata by this doctor. 10. Doctor Ravjibhai Dhanabhai Makwana, PW 15, Exh 46 had carried out the postmortem. In the PM note Exh 49, he had recorded the following injuries: "1. A stab wound 2x1x muscle deep over left side of neck, below lower border of left side of mandible. Direction of the wound was from above downwards and medially. 2. A stab wound, 1x1/2x muscle deep, over root of neck, on front aspect, just above suprasternal notch. Direction of the wound was from below upwards and left side. 3. A stab wound 2x1x muscle deep, over middle 1/3 region of right arm. Direction of the wound was from below upwards and inwards. 4. 2. A stab wound, 1x1/2x muscle deep, over root of neck, on front aspect, just above suprasternal notch. Direction of the wound was from below upwards and left side. 3. A stab wound 2x1x muscle deep, over middle 1/3 region of right arm. Direction of the wound was from below upwards and inwards. 4. A stab wound 1x1/2x muscle deep over outer aspect of right side of the chest, in the 5th inter costal space in the mid axillary line region. Direction of the wound was from above downwards. 5. A stab wound, 1.5x1/2x muscle deep, over outer aspect of right side of the chest, in the 6th intercostal space, in the anterior axillary line region direction of the wound was from above downwards. 6. A stab wound 2x1/2 x abdominal cavity deep, over mid line of abdomen 1.5 above umbilicus. Omentum was seen through the wound. Direction of the wound was from right to left side of abdomen, upwards and backwards. 7. A stab wound 2x1/2 muscle deep over upper 1/3 region of right thigh on lateral aspect. Direction of the wound was from without inwards. 8. A stab wound 0.5 cm x 3 mm x muscle deep over front aspect of right thigh, on upper 1/3 region. Direction of the wound was from front to backwards." 11. He deposed that all these injuries were stab wounds. Injury No. 6, in particular, was serious. Corresponding to such injury there was internal damage to the intestines and spleen. According to him, the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to injury on the stomach. He agreed that such injury could have been caused by the muddamal article knife. 12. The murder weapon was discovered at the instance of the accused under panchnama Exh 25. Though panch witness Balwantsinh Jilubha, PW 7, Exh 24 turned hostile, the discovery was proved through the evidence of Investigating Officer of Khengarji Chaturji Rajput, PW 25, Exh 103. The panchnama shows that the accused led the panch witnesses and the police party near his father's house. From underneath a heap of stones under a neem tree, he took out a knife. 13. Khengarji Rajput, the Investigating Officer, gave the details of investigation carried out. Through this evidence, it has come on record that the accused had tried to commit suicide by consuming poison shortly after the incident. From underneath a heap of stones under a neem tree, he took out a knife. 13. Khengarji Rajput, the Investigating Officer, gave the details of investigation carried out. Through this evidence, it has come on record that the accused had tried to commit suicide by consuming poison shortly after the incident. He was treated in the hospital for a few days before he was discharged. 14. This, in the nutshell, is the evidence on record. 15. Counsel for the accused submitted that the accused was wrongly convicted. The complaint was not an eyewitness. Though the incident allegedly took place at a public place, no independent witness is examined. Those who were examined, did not support the prosecution. 16. Counsel submitted that, in any case, this was not a case of murder. Even as per the prosecution there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased followed by the assault with the knife. The accused would, therefore, fall under section 304 of IPC. In this context, the counsel relied on the following decisions: "(i) In case of Ram Autar and ors. v. State of U.P reported in 2016 (4) Crimes 325 (SC); (ii) In case of State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6397." 17. On the other hand, learned APP Mr. Patel opposed the appeal contending that the Trial Court has given cogent reasons for convicting the accused. Evidence on record clearly established his involvement. Complainant was an injured eyewitness. Her deposition, therefore, would be of great significance. He relied on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259 . 18. We may appreciate the evidence on record. Kailash, PW 14, Exh 42, the elder sister of the deceased, who was the first informant, according to her, after completing her work at Dhrangadhra Chemcial factory, she was returning home at about 7 O'clock when her sister, brother and neighbour were going to the temple were bhajan programme was organized. She joined them. At the temple, they met the accused. Accused and Lata had a love affair. Accused tried to talk to Lata. She rebelled him, upon which, the accused stabbed her in the stomach and then on the neck. In between, she tried to intervene. She was also injured. 19. The first information report was lodged barely a couple of hours later. At the temple, they met the accused. Accused and Lata had a love affair. Accused tried to talk to Lata. She rebelled him, upon which, the accused stabbed her in the stomach and then on the neck. In between, she tried to intervene. She was also injured. 19. The first information report was lodged barely a couple of hours later. There was thus, no loss of time. In the meantime, Lata and Kailash were first taken to the Government hospital at Dhrangadhra from where Lata was taken for further treatment by her parents and others. Kailash after primary treatment, was discharged and went to the police station to lodge an FIR. The doctor, who examined both the sisters at Dhrangadhra hospital, also supported this version. He had recorded the history of being assaulted by the accused. Though it is not clear who had given the history in case of Lata clearly in case of Kailash such history was given by the injured herself. There was nothing in the cross-examination by Kailash which would shake our confidence in her testimony. She was herself an injured person and had to take basic treatment at the hospital. Her presence with her sister near the temple which was situated close to their house was very natural. 20. Version of Kailash gets ample corroboration from different sources. Kusumben @ Aasha, PW 20 younger sister of the deceased was also with the group who had gone to the temple. She also referred to the presence of both the sisters Lata as well as Kailash. According to her, when the accused came there, the two sisters left under the pretext of answering the nature's call. Soon she heard shouts from the direction where their sisters had gone. She rushed there, found Lata lying in a pool of blood. The accused was still present. 21. This witness may not be in the strict sense an eyewitness. She does not even claim to have seen accused stabbing her sister. Nevertheless, being a part of the group, who had gone to the temple, her deposition of what happened just before and just after the assault would be of great significance. The witness supported the version of Kailash that when all of them came back after the darshan from the temple, the accused tried to talk to Lata. She rushed to the place after hearing the shouts. The witness supported the version of Kailash that when all of them came back after the darshan from the temple, the accused tried to talk to Lata. She rushed to the place after hearing the shouts. To the extent she had seen the events, she supported the version of her elder sister Kailash. 22. Lalitbhai, PW 17 also supported the version of Kailash. He had reached the place of the incident upon hearing the shouts and seen the accused stabbing Lata. 23. Heydarbhai, PW 18, Exh 61 though turned hostile, in part supported the prosecution case. He was referred to as person by Kailash, who had shifted the two injured sisters at the hospital at Dhrangadhra. He agreed that he was present at the temple with his jeep and had shifted the injured lady to the hospital in his jeep. 24. The discovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused is an additional factor. The knife carried the blood of the group of the deceased. The serological report Exh 134 would show that the deceased had blood Group 'O' which was found from her clothes and also from the clothes of complainant. 25. The evidence on the record thus clearly establish the prosecution case. Very clearly when Lalit, Kusum and other family members of their family went to the temple for darshan and to attend the bhajan programme, the accused arrived there. The accused called Lata. Lata was not keen on talking to him. It appears that the two sisters had gone to an isolated place under the pretext of easing themselves. Possibly Lata was persuaded by Kailash to meet the accused. When Lata remained unmoved, the accused got angry and started stabbing her. Kailash tried to intervene. She was also injured. The fact, that Kailash was an eyewitness therefore is beyond doubt. The other material on record is consistent with her version. 26. Contrary to what was canvassed before us, this is also not a case where the accused can get the benefit of section 304 instead of section 302 of IPC. Merely because Lata refused to speak to the accused, who may have romantic feelings for her and even if Lata in the past had such feelings for him, would not provide any provocation to the accused to stab the lady to death. Merely because Lata refused to speak to the accused, who may have romantic feelings for her and even if Lata in the past had such feelings for him, would not provide any provocation to the accused to stab the lady to death. He had not stopped at one blow but given multiple blows with the knife, at least two of such blows were on vital parts of the body. He even attacked the person who tried to intervene. 27. In the result, judgement dated 18.02.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, Dist. Surendranagar, is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed. R & P to be transmitted back to the concerned Trial Court. 28. In view of the order passed in the main appeal, Criminal Misc. Application for regular bail does not survive and the same is dismissed.