JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. Appellants are the original accused. They have challenged the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 30.10.2012 in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2011. By the said judgment, both the accused were convicted for offences under sections 302 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Case and sentenced to life imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that on 12.01.2011, the accused and one more of their friends i.e. the absconding accused Vinubhai Parshottambhai Chauhan, had a quarrel with deceased Alpesh @ Teeno at about 8 O'clock at night for not returning a mobile phone to them. Soon the quarrel took an ugly turn. Accused No. 2-Ramjibhai Vallabhbhai Chauhan and absconding accused-Vinubhai caught Alpesh and, accused No. 1-Jagdishbhai Vallabhbhai Chauhan gave multiple knife blows to Alpesh causing fatal injuries. A charge under Exh. 7 was, therefore, framed against the accused for offences punishable under sections 302, 504 read with section 114 of IPC. 3. We may record the gist of evidence. 4. Babubhai Jivabhai Waghela, PW 2 Exh. 20, the uncle of deceased Alpesh was the first informant. He was not an eyewitness but reached the scene of incident shortly since he lived in the same village at a nearby place. According to him, at the time of the incident, he was at home. One Kanchanben had come to his house to tell him that the accused had fought with Alpesh and he had been killed near the shop of Bavchandbhai. He went there and saw that Alpesh was lying there. He was stabbed in the chest and on the side of the stomach. Somebody had called the police which arrived after about an hour and recorded his FIR which was produced at Exh. 21. 5. Shantibhai Ashokbhai, PW 3, Exh. 21, was supposed to be an eyewitness. He deposed that the incident took-place at about 8:30 at night near the shop of Bavchandbhai. At that time, he had gone to a pan shop to have masala. At that time, some quarrel was going on between Alpesh and Jagdishbhai, Ramjibhai and Vinubhai about a mobile phone. Shantibhai Ashokbhai, PW 3, Exh. 21, was supposed to be an eyewitness. He deposed that the incident took-place at about 8:30 at night near the shop of Bavchandbhai. At that time, he had gone to a pan shop to have masala. At that time, some quarrel was going on between Alpesh and Jagdishbhai, Ramjibhai and Vinubhai about a mobile phone. Jagdishbhai told his companions to catch hold of Alpesh upon which, accused No. 2 Rameshbhai and Vinubhai (absconding accused) caught Alpesh and took him near a wall where Jagdishbhai stabbed him with a knife on the side of the stomach and in the chest two or three times. He, therefore, started shouting upon which, people reached there. In the cross-examination, he agreed that he was a relative of Alpesh. He did not know whether Alpesh himself was facing criminal cases. He had not intervened when the quarrel between Alpesh and the accused was going on. His statement was recorded by the police next day. 6. Dr. Harshadbhai Govindbhai Katrodiya, PW 6, Exh. 27, had carried out the postmortem. In the postmortem note Exh. 28, he had recorded the following injuries: "1. Stab wound on Lt side of abdomen (Lt hypochondrial region) 15 c.m. from umbilicus and 13 c.m. from Lt breast of around 2.7 c.m. x 1.2 c.m. x 10 c.m. and acute angle directed medially and backward on dissection there is cutting of spleen and 8th rib then peritoneum and then enter into peritoneal cavity; 2. Stab wound on Lt chest near sternum. 8 c.m. from Ltd. nipple and 13 c.m. from Rt nipple around 2.3 x 1.1 x 13 c.m. with bleeding and sharp margins and acute angle directed medially backward and upward. On dissection cutting of pericardium and enter into Rt atrium." According to him, the cause of death was sudden cardio respiratory arrest due to shock due to massive hemorrhage due to rupture of spleen and perforation of artery of heart. He deposed that the injury on the chest was such that it had pierced the cover of the heart and the wound was a penetration right inside the heart chamber. He agreed that such injuries could be caused by a sharp edged instrument such as muddamal article No. 17, the knife. 7. Kanchanben Kishorebhai Waghela, PW 4, Exh. 23, was the person who informed about the incident to Babubhai, PW 2, the first informant. He agreed that such injuries could be caused by a sharp edged instrument such as muddamal article No. 17, the knife. 7. Kanchanben Kishorebhai Waghela, PW 4, Exh. 23, was the person who informed about the incident to Babubhai, PW 2, the first informant. However, this witness Kanchanben herself was not an eyewitness. 8. The murder weapon knife was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1 under discovery panchnama Exh. 21. Though the panch witness, Yunusbhai Rasulbhai Makwana, PW 1, turned hostile, such discovery was proved through the evidence of IO. 9. Various articles collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation were sent for forensic analysis. The FSL report read with serological report Exh. 52 would show that the deceased had blood group 'A'. It was blood of this group which was found from the murder weapon knife. 10. This, in the nutshell is the evidence on record. 11. From such evidence, it can be seen that there was an eyewitness to the said incident in PW 3, Shantibhai Ashokbhai. He was present near the scene of incident. He had gone to the pan shop in the evening hours. He first saw the two accused and their companions quarreling with Alpesh after which, two of them caught hold of him and accused No. 1 stabbed him at least two to three times. The presence and testimony of this witness are criticized on two grounds. First that his presence was not natural and second that he being a relative of the deceased, was an interested witness. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the incident took place in a small village and the witness being a resident of the same village, his presence in the evening hours at the market place at the pan shop was, by no means, unnatural. It was not even the case of the defence that this witness resided in entirely different location and he, therefore, had no reason under ordinary circumstances to visit a pan shop in the said locality. Merely because he was a relative, does not necessarily make him an unreliable witness. The deceased himself was facing several criminal cases, as suggested by the defence itself. Merely because he was a relative, does not necessarily make him an unreliable witness. The deceased himself was facing several criminal cases, as suggested by the defence itself. In an incident like this where such an assault takes place by three persons on one side and the defence on the other who are facing criminal cases of various kinds, disinclination of the independent witnesses to come forward and depose before the Court is a known phenomenon. The fact therefore that, no independent witnesses were examined by itself would not be a good enough defence. In the cross examination of this witness, nothing substantial has come out except for bringing on record certain minor improvements. 12. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by the evidence of PW 2, the complainant who reached the scene of incident upon being informed by Kanchanben, PW 4. He also referred to the presence of witness Shantibhai. Further corroboration is available in the form of discovery of the murder weapon at the instance of accused No. 1. As noted, such discovery was proved through evidence of the IO. The discovery panchnama Exh. 11 showed that it was the accused who led the panch witnesses and the police party to an isolated place from where behind an electric pole, the accused took out the knife. The FSL report established presence of human blood on such knife of the group belonging to the deceased. The medical opinion also was consistent with the version of the eyewitness. The deceased had got stab injuries on the chest and on the side of the stomach which could be caused by the murder weapon knife. 13. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in confirming the view of the learned Sessions Court that it was accused No. 1 who had stabbed the deceased with his knife after a brief quarrel. Involvement of accused No. 1 is, thus, duly established. The fact, that he was rightly convicted for the offence under section 302 of IPC is also not much debatable. He had used a dangerous weapon and given multiple blows on most vulnerable parts of the body. Two of the blows were on the chest. One of the blows was so severe that it pierced through the heart wall and punctured the chamber. He had used a dangerous weapon and given multiple blows on most vulnerable parts of the body. Two of the blows were on the chest. One of the blows was so severe that it pierced through the heart wall and punctured the chamber. The third blow also was on the side of the stomach through which, it had access to the vital parts of the body. This was thus, a clear case of the blows being given with the intention to cause death. No other conclusion is possible. 14. The case of accused No. 2, however, stands on a vastly different footing. According to the sole eyewitness, the role played by this accused was to catch hold of the deceased upon which, accused No. 1 gave the blows. In precise terms, this witness explained that first there was some heated discussion going on between Alpesh and the accused, upon which, accused No. 1 told his companions to catch hold of Alpesh who caught him and took him near the wall. After that, accused No. 1 took out a knife and gave two or three blows to Alpesh. 15. If we analyze the evidence of this witness, it becomes clear that first there was some friction between the two sides. Alpesh on one side and the accused and their third companion on the other side. It was at that time that accused No. 1 told his two companions to catch Alpesh. They caught him and took him near a wall. Till this point knife of accused No. 1 was nowhere in picture. As per the eyewitness it was at that moment that accused No. 1 took out a knife and gave three successive blows. 16. The evidence of this witness is insufficient to establish that accused No. 2 shared a common intention of causing death of Alpesh with accused No. 1. There is nothing on the record to suggest that there was prior meeting of minds. The incident happened as a result of quarrel. There was thus no pre-meditation. Further, till accused No. 1 took out a knife and gave the blows, there is nothing to suggest that accused No. 2 was aware that accused No. 1 was carrying a knife or that he intended to use with telling effect. The incident happened as a result of quarrel. There was thus no pre-meditation. Further, till accused No. 1 took out a knife and gave the blows, there is nothing to suggest that accused No. 2 was aware that accused No. 1 was carrying a knife or that he intended to use with telling effect. All that we know is that accused No. 1 asked his two friends to catch Alpesh and then quickly stabbed him thrice. Such evidence would not be enough to hold that accused No. 2 shared a common intention with accused No. 1 of causing death. His conviction for offence under section 302 with the aid of section 114 of IPC was therefore, not justified. 17. In the result, conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 is confirmed; that of accused No. 2 is reversed. Appeal is allowed in part and disposed of accordingly. R & P to be transmitted back to the concerned Trial Court. Appeal Partly Allowed.