JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 452 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and 7 years respectively. The appellant is also convicted for offence punishable under section 324 and 242 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and 6 months respectively, by Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012 vide Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2014. Hence, this appeal. 2. Such of the facts necessary for decision of this case is as follows: (i) It is the prosecution case that the appellant was acquainted with the family of Shehnaz Alamgir Shaikh. That on 7th May, 2012, the accused Sabira had visited the house of Shehnaz in the afternoon about 3.30 p.m. She had offered the service of facial/body massage to Shehnaz. Shehnaz had accepted the offer. (ii) Two daughters of Shehnaz namely, Misbah and Saiba were at home. They were watching T.V. Shehnaz was made to lie on the cot for facial and massage. She had noticed that the accused Sabira had kept her purse next to her. She had switched off her cell phone. (iii) Thereafter, she had drawn a knife from the purse and had slated the neck of Shahnaz. Shehnaz was taken by shock. She touched her neck and felt the blood trickling down her neck. She rushed outside the room. Her daughters were in shock to see their injured mother. (iv) At that juncture Sabira had assaulted Saiba as well as Misbha. Shehnaz had taken rescue in the house of the neighbour. Upon enquiry, she could not narrate the incident as she was not able to talk. She was drenched with blood. Soon she was followed by her daughters who were also injured. In the meanwhile, Sabira had filed from the house. (v) Shehnaz was taken to Grand Medical and Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals. She had sustained a cut throat injury. She was admitted in the emergency ward. She had to undergo tracheotomy since she was unable to speak. Her statement could not be recorded by the police. She was treated as indoor patient from 8.5.2012 to 15.6.2012. (vi) On the same day i.e. 7.5.2012 Ms. Saiba Shaikh lodged a report at the Nagpada Police Station about the said incident. She was admitted in the emergency ward. She had to undergo tracheotomy since she was unable to speak. Her statement could not be recorded by the police. She was treated as indoor patient from 8.5.2012 to 15.6.2012. (vi) On the same day i.e. 7.5.2012 Ms. Saiba Shaikh lodged a report at the Nagpada Police Station about the said incident. On the basis of which crime No. 148 of 2012 was registered at Nagpada Police Station for offence punishable under section 307, 324, 341, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1), 135 of the Bombay Police Act. (vii) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012. The prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 3. It is a case of direct evidence. The case of the prosecution revolves around 3 witnesses. Their evidence stands corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. 4. PW-1 Shaiba Shaikh is the injured witness as well as the daughter of Shehnaz. She had deposed before the Court in consonance with the first information report, she has narrated the incident as had occurred on 7.5.2012. At the time of incident, she was watching television in the hall and her mother and younger sister Misbha were watching television in the bed-room. She had opened the door for the accused Sabira. By way of hospitality, upon arrival, they had offered juice to Sabira. Since it was hot, her mother had given a maxi to Sabira in order to make her comfortable. Her mother and Sabira had gone to another room. Within half an hour her mother came out of the house with injuries to her neck and she had rushed to the house of neighbour. PW-1 rushed to the bed room and she saw her younger sister having been assaulted by Sabira. PW-1 attempted to intervene. She was also assaulted by Sabira. PW-1 had sustained cut injuries on her index finger of right hand since she snatched the knife from the hands of Sabira. In the meanwhile her younger sister Misba was assaulted by Sabira on her left hand. Girls rescued themselves from the clutches of Sabira and rushed to the neighbour's house. She was also assaulted by Sabira. PW-1 had sustained cut injuries on her index finger of right hand since she snatched the knife from the hands of Sabira. In the meanwhile her younger sister Misba was assaulted by Sabira on her left hand. Girls rescued themselves from the clutches of Sabira and rushed to the neighbour's house. The people from the society had gathered on the spot and her mother and younger sister were taken to J.J. Hospital and after some time she also followed them to J.J. Hospital. Police had arrived at the spot as the information was given to the police station by the neighbours. She has proved the contents of the first information report which is marked at Exh.16. 5. A frail attempt was made by the defence to create dent in her examination in chief. However, she could not be shattered as far as the actual incident is concerned. She has admitted in the cross-examination that said complex i.e. Doodhwala Complex is having good security system. Visitors cannot enter into building without registering their name in the register. She had denied the suggestion that the security in the building was round the clock. She had voluntarily stated in the cross-examination that at the time of lunch hour, there is no security person there. It is admitted in the cross-examination that her father had introduced the accused Sabira to the family as her father and Sabira were acquainted with each other for long time. It is also admitted that there was some monetary dispute between injured Shehnaz and the accused Sabira. The cause of dispute was that Shehnaz had given gold of worth Rs. 5 Lacs to the accused on credit from a jeweller and the accused was not repaying the said amount to the jeweller. Therefore, he was pressurising Shehnaz to return the amount. It is stated that despite the fact that there was dispute between Shehnaz and Sabira, there were cordial relations between husband of Shehnaz i.e. father of PW-1 and Sabira. 6. PW-2 Misbha Shaikh has also deposed and narrated the incident as it had occurred and she reiterates the deposition of her sister i.e. PW-1. She has specifically stated that her mother had gone to her room for facial alongwith accused Sabira and after some time she opened the door of the room holding her neck as the injury was bleeding. PW-2 Misbha Shaikh has also deposed and narrated the incident as it had occurred and she reiterates the deposition of her sister i.e. PW-1. She has specifically stated that her mother had gone to her room for facial alongwith accused Sabira and after some time she opened the door of the room holding her neck as the injury was bleeding. PW-2 attempted to raise shout. The accused had gagged her mouth by her right hand and assaulted her by holding knife in her left hand. She had rushed to the bath room and saved herself. Saiba had attempted to save her. Sabira had dragged Saiba in the bathroom and closed the door. She had also taken charge of PW-2. Saiba who had snatched knife from the hand of the accused and had sustained injuries in the said process. PW-2 could not be shattered in her cross-examination. She has stated in the cross-examination that her mother had given jewellery on credit to the accused from known jeweller. The accused had not paid the whole amount to her mother and she owed Rs. 3,50,000/- to her mother. In fact, PW-1 and 2 had identified accused in the C.C.T.V. footage and therefore, PW-2 has denied the suggestion that at the time of recording the supplementary statement, police had told her that the lady seen in the C.C.T.V. footage is the accused. In fact, the accused was known to the witnesses. 7. PW-3 Shehnaz Alamgir Shaikh is the victim. She has deposed before the Court that her husband had introduced Sabira to her. She was a beautician and used to intermittently offer services to her and her daughters. According to her, on the date of incident at about 3.30 to 3.45 p.m. Sabira had visited their house. She was carrying a black colour purse and the plastic bag. Sabira had told her that she had been to the jeweller. She had enquired with PW-3 as to whether any beauty services are required and PW-3 had required that and if time permits, she would like to do a facial. PW-3 has stated that they had been to master bed room. Sabira had kept plastic bag with her. She has changed her clothes. Sabira had disclosed to PW-3 upon enquiry that she had purchased Burkha for her daughter from Agripada. PW-3 has stated that they had been to master bed room. Sabira had kept plastic bag with her. She has changed her clothes. Sabira had disclosed to PW-3 upon enquiry that she had purchased Burkha for her daughter from Agripada. When PW-3 slept on the cot, Sabira was doing facial without applying any cream and soon thereafter, she switched off her cellphone. She had pressed her chin forcibly upwards, put her left hand on her face. Thereafter, she had drawn knife from the purse and moved the said knife on her neck from left to right. PW-3 has candidly admitted that she had only seen the tip of the knife. She saw the blood oozing from her injury. She held injury and rushed outside room. Sabira had disclosed to PW-3 that since she was passing a bad phase, she would kill all of them. Sabira was about to assault her for second time. However, PW-3 managed to push her away. She had fallen on the ground. It appears that there was some scuffle. Mishba had enquired with her as to what had happened but since she could not speak, she rushed to her neighbour's house i.e. to the house of Liyakatali Khan. She was not able to speak. Liyakatali called her brother who was residing on the 16th floor. Thereafter, she was taken to J.J. Hospital for medical treatment. On the way, she had become unconscious. She had regained consciousness after 3 days. She was not able to speak for one month. She was treated as an indoor patient for one month and 6 days. The police had recorded her statement after one month of the incident. She has identified the accused in the court. PW-3 could not be shattered in her cross-examination. 8. She has admitted in the cross-examination that even on the date of recording of evidence, relations between her husband and the accused were cordial and normal. She has denied to have given consent for grant of bail in favour of the accused before the Apex Court. She had no knowledge as to which Court had granted her bail. She has admitted that advocate Mr. Samir Vaidya is the Counsel for her husband in all matters. She was never informed by her husband that the application for bail filed by the accused is pending before the Supreme court and her consent would be necessary for her release. She had no knowledge as to which Court had granted her bail. She has admitted that advocate Mr. Samir Vaidya is the Counsel for her husband in all matters. She was never informed by her husband that the application for bail filed by the accused is pending before the Supreme court and her consent would be necessary for her release. However, she has specifically denied to have consented for the release of the accused on bail. It is also admitted that the amount of ornaments purchased from jeweller was not paid by the accused. She has denied that there was strained relationship between her and her husband on account of his relations with Sabira. 9. PW-4 Liyakatali Khan has been declared hostile. However, his wife PW-5 Mrs. Shamim Liyakat Khan has admitted that on 5th May, 2012 at about 5.30 p.m. Shehnaz Shaikh had come to their house in an injured condition. She was drenched with blood. She was not able to speak and therefore, she was rushed to the hospital. 10. PW-6 Mohd. Merchant is the manager of the society. According to him, on the date of the incident, security watchman had informed him that a lady residing on 10th floor was severely injured. He rushed to the house of Liyakat Khan and has seen the injured and her injured daughters were also present and on humanitarian ground they all had taken the said lady and her daughters to J.J. Hospital in the car of their Chairman. It is specifically stated that after seeing the C.C.T.V. footage on the same day, the daughters of Shehnaz had identified the assailants. It is admitted in the cross-examination that there is C.C.T.V. facility in the lift but not in the lobby of the flats. Similarly, there is C.C. TV facility on the main entrance door of the society. According to him, C. D. Article 11 was given to the police by the Society. It is admitted that he has friendly relations with the husband of Shehnaz i.e. with Alamgir Shaikh. He further admits that he had not seen any lady leaving the complex in gown. He had denied the suggestion that the daughters of victim did not make any statement before him qua the accused. 11. PW-7 Dr. Manmohan Jagade was attached to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai as Professor and as Head of Department of Head and Neck Surgery. He further admits that he had not seen any lady leaving the complex in gown. He had denied the suggestion that the daughters of victim did not make any statement before him qua the accused. 11. PW-7 Dr. Manmohan Jagade was attached to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai as Professor and as Head of Department of Head and Neck Surgery. He had performed emergency tracheotomy on the patient Shahnaz. He had deposed before the court the history of the injury. According to him, the injury was grievous in nature and that if the patient would not have been given treatment in time, it could have been fatal. He has produced the original case papers before the Court, which is marked at Exh.27. He had further deposed that the injury had almost cut the wind pipe. The injury was to the trachea. There was cut on the interior part of the trachea. Wind pipe had not been entirely cut. 12. PW-8 Mohd. Abdul Kadir Parkar also resides in E-wing, Doodhwala Complex, Mumbai. He has acted as a panch for the scene of offence panchanama. The door was locked and hence, they had called for a lock maker. The police and panchas had entered in the said flat at the time of conducting scene of offence panchanama. They had noticed that blood had fallen in the bed room, hall and bath room. There was also blood at the entrance of the flat and the trail of blood could be seen till flat No. 1002. There was also blood on the sink in the house of Liyakatali. The police had taken photographs of the places. The broken knife was removed from the Commode. The scene of offence panchanama is at Exh.21. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the witness had not gone through the contents of the panchanama but had read over the contents to him. Rest of the suggestions are denied. 13. Initially, the learned Counsel for the appellant had vehemently submitted that although the injury was grievous in nature, there were no blood stains in the house. There were no blood stains on the pillow cover and therefore, the deposition of PW-1, 2 and 3 would stand falsified. Rest of the suggestions are denied. 13. Initially, the learned Counsel for the appellant had vehemently submitted that although the injury was grievous in nature, there were no blood stains in the house. There were no blood stains on the pillow cover and therefore, the deposition of PW-1, 2 and 3 would stand falsified. However, going through the substantive evidence of PW-8, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the contents of the panchanama are not proved because the panch witness had not signed the said document after going through its contents. In the facts of the present case, this would be frail attempt to falsify the evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3. 14. PW-9 Allauddin Shaikh is the panch for seizure of C.C. from the office of the society. 15. PW-10 Dr. Mubashir Mohd. Parkar has also acted as panch for the recovery of clothes of the accused. 16. PW-11 Hietesh Vallabhdas Zaveri is the jeweller. According to him, in the month of March, 2012, Shehnaz (victim) had visited his shop alongwith Sabira, the accused. Accused Sabira had purchased jewellery worth Rs. 4,75,000/- from him. At the time of purchase she had paid Rs. One lac. After about a month, she had given two cheques of Rs. 2 Lacs each. The said cheques were dishonoured. 17. PW-12 Dr. Lalit Arun Hulule has proved the injuries sustained by the other victims i.e. the daughters of Shehnaz. He had notice four injuries on Misbha. 18. PW-13 Nasir Mehmood Khan was attached to Nagpada Police Station. It is not necessary to consider his evidence. 19. PW-14 Bablu Ramnarayan Pal was called upon to act as a panch in Nagpada Police Station at 4 p.m. for the recovery of knife. In fact, the knife was found in the course of conducting scene of offence panchanama. Therefore, recovery at the hands of the accused appellant would not inspire confidence of the court. 20. PW-15 Sanjay Namdeo Dhonner was attached to Nagpada Police station. According to him, he has received messages in respect of the incident in question. He had recorded complaint of Saiba as per her say. He had recorded the statement of witnesses, collected blood samples. He had also stated that she can identify the photograph, if shown to her. 20. PW-15 Sanjay Namdeo Dhonner was attached to Nagpada Police station. According to him, he has received messages in respect of the incident in question. He had recorded complaint of Saiba as per her say. He had recorded the statement of witnesses, collected blood samples. He had also stated that she can identify the photograph, if shown to her. He has admitted that on 7.5.2012 he was the junior most officer in the cadre of PSI and above. 21. PW-16 Suresh Shankarrao Magdum was Sr. P.I. attached to Nagpada Police. It is admitted by PW-16 that there was no investigation in respect of C.C.T.V. footage. He has proved the omissions and contradictions. 22. PW-17 Sudhakar Kashinath Kamble was attached to Nagpada Police station who had caused arrest of Sabira. After completion of investigation has filed charge-sheet. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated by PW-3 since she has suspected that some relation exists between her husband and Sabira. As far as injury is concerned, it is submitted that since the motive is proved, it is to be inferred that it is a case of false implications. 24. In fact, this is a case of direct evidence where the accused appellant had taken undue advantage of her frequent visits to the house of the witnesses and had taken undue advantage of cordial relationship with the members of the family. In fact, even on the date of the incident, she was greeted well by mother and daughters. That PW-3 had also given her clothes to change being unaware of the fact that the accused has entered the house with an ill intention. The victim herself is an eye witness. Her evidence is corroborated by her daughters PW-1 and 2. 25. According to the learned Counsel, no implicit reliance can be placed upon the substantial evidence of PW-1 and 2 as they happen to be interested witnesses and that they would leave no stone unturned to protect the interest and dignity of their mother. The submissions of the learned Counsel are against the record. In view of the factual position stated herein above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason nor any ground to observe that the substantive evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 does not inspire confidence of the Court. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The submissions of the learned Counsel are against the record. In view of the factual position stated herein above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason nor any ground to observe that the substantive evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 does not inspire confidence of the Court. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The findings recorded by the Sessions Court does not require any interference. 26. Report of Yerwada Central Prison dated 13/6/2017 indicates that on 13.6.2017 the appellant had already undergone 5 years and 11 months. She has been sentenced to substantive sentence of 7 years. 27. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the victim who was awarded 50% of the compensation amount has expired. In view of this, PW-1 and PW-2 who happen to be the injured witnesses i.e. the daughters of the victim would be entitled to the compensation as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay vide Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2014 in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012. 28. Hence, following order is passed: ORDER: (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under section 452, 307, 324, 342 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay vide Judgment and Order dated 11.8.2014 in Sessions Case No. 654 of 2012 is hereby confirmed. (iii) If the appellant has already undergone the sentence, she be released forthwith. (iv) The compensation awarded to the victim be awarded to PW-1 and PW-2, who happen to be the injured witnesses i.e. the daughters of the victim. (v) Writ be expedited. (vi) The Registry to communicate this order to the appellant who is lodged in Yerwada Central Prison (Women Cell).