JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The present appeal is preferred by the original accused-appellant herein against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2011, whereby the original accused was ordered to undergo (i) life imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to pay fine to undergo imprisonment for six months, (ii) simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.250/- and in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and (iii) simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act with a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. It was further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 The complainant was residing with her husband the deceased and her son outside Dhari Station Plot Post Office at Dhari. The husband of the complainant was serving as Principal at Pragati High School at Village Dudhala since 13 years and they were residing in the house of one Pankajbhai Vyas on rent. Her husband was doing up-down from Dhari to Dudhala. 2.2 On 22.02.2010, at around 5:30PM, the complainant, her husband and son had gone to keep her mother at the railway-station and at that time, when they were coming back, the present appellant-accused had called on her husband’s mobile phone demanding illicit relationship with the complainant, due to which, in order to settle the issue, her husband along with his wife-the complainant and son went to the place of incident. At that time, while the settlement talks were going on, the appellant gave successive knife blows over the person of her husband, because of which, her husband succumbed to the injuries and died. Thus, the complaint being First Information Report No. I-18 of 2010 was lodged before Dhari Police Station. 2.3 Consequently, upon the complaint of the complainant, the appellant-accused was arrested and the investigation was carried out. Thus, the complaint being First Information Report No. I-18 of 2010 was lodged before Dhari Police Station. 2.3 Consequently, upon the complaint of the complainant, the appellant-accused was arrested and the investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and mudammal discovered were sent to F.S.L. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present accused for the offences punishable under sections 302 & 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhari which was registered as Criminal Case No.110 of 2010. The learned JMFC committed the case under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court of Sessions as the offences punishable under sections 302 & 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the same was registered and numbered as Sessions Case No.49 of 2011 (Old Sessions Case No. 42 of 2010). 2.4 The charge against the present accused came to be framed vide Exh.1. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial commenced wherein, in all, 21 witnesses were examined and 36 documentary evidences were adduced. After the evidence of the complainant was over, further statement of the appellant-accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2.5 After hearing the learned advocates of both the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge passed the judgment and order as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. To bring home the charges levelled against the appellant, the prosecution examined following witnesses before the trial court:- 1. Rasmikant Mansukhlal Joshi Exh.12 2. Jyotiben Yogeshkumar Trivedi Exh.17 3. Keshubhai Merubhai Barad Exh.19 4. Rajsinbhai Bijiya Bambhor Exh.22 5. Jay Yogeshbhai Trivedi Exh.25 6. Arvindbhai Gagndas Rangpariya Exh.26 7. Lakhmanbhai Ramjibhai Dabhi Exh.28 8. Aamirbhai Abhrambhai Gadhiya Exh.31 9. Ishabhai Mamadbhai Shah Exh.35 10. Jasubhai Suragbhai Vada Exh.36 11. Chetanbhai Laljibhai Sarvaiya Exh.38 12. Popatbhai Shamjibhai Exh.40 13. Dhirubhai Dolubha Jadeja Exh.42 14. Pravinbhai Bhaishankar Jani Exh.45 15. Jaydip Chhaganbhai Makwana Exh.46 16. Laljibhai Vallabbhai Exh.49 17. Babubhai Chimanbhai Jani Exh.50 18. Kokilaben Bhavanishankar Pandya Exh.55 19. Mukeshnand Nandshankar Joshi Exh.62 20. Anandkumar Prakashbhai Patel Exh.69 21. Ishabhai Mamadbhai Shah Exh.35 10. Jasubhai Suragbhai Vada Exh.36 11. Chetanbhai Laljibhai Sarvaiya Exh.38 12. Popatbhai Shamjibhai Exh.40 13. Dhirubhai Dolubha Jadeja Exh.42 14. Pravinbhai Bhaishankar Jani Exh.45 15. Jaydip Chhaganbhai Makwana Exh.46 16. Laljibhai Vallabbhai Exh.49 17. Babubhai Chimanbhai Jani Exh.50 18. Kokilaben Bhavanishankar Pandya Exh.55 19. Mukeshnand Nandshankar Joshi Exh.62 20. Anandkumar Prakashbhai Patel Exh.69 21. Manishkumar Mangalbhai Patel Exh.94 3.1 The prosecution also produced following documentary evidences in support of its case:- 1. Application for P.M. by Dhari Police Station to Medical Officer, Dhari Exh.13 2. Death Certificate of the deceased Exh.14 3. PM Note of the deceased Exh.15 4. Complaint Exh.18 5. Map of place of incident Exh.23 6. Application to Circle Inspector Dhari for preparing a map of place of Incident Exh.24 7. Inquest Panchnama Exh.27 8. Panchnama of collection of sand at the place of incident Exh.29 9. Panchnama of place of incident Exh.32 10. Discovery panchnama of cloth of deceased Exh.33 11. Arrest Panchnama Exh.37 12. Discovery Panchanama Exh.41 13. Proclamation of Prohibition of Weapon Exh.47 14. Discovery panchnama of sari Exh.51 15. Application for registering a complaint by PSI Dhari to PSO Dhari Exh.56 16. Depute Order of Investigation Exh.57 17. Voice report of FSL Exh.63 18. Letter for voice test by Police Superintendent, Amreli to Science Laboratory Exh.64 19. Accused’s Control Voice Recording Form Exh.65 20. Place investigation report Exh.70 21. Application for filling up inquest by PSO Dhari to Executive Magistrate Exh.71 22. Receipt of handing over the dead body Exh.72 23. Application for collecting blood sample of the accused by the PSI Dhari to Medical Officer Exh.73 24. Letter for analysis of mudammal by PSI Dhari to FSL Junagadh Exh.74 25. Receipt of FSL, Junagadh of analysis of mudammal Exh.75 26. Photo of place of incident Exh.76 27. Letter for sending call details by LCBPI, Amreli to PSI Dhari Exh.77 28. Letter of sending mudammal analysis report by FSL Junagadh to PSI Dhari Exh.78 29. Letter along with Serological Analysis Report by FSL, Junagadh to PSI Dhari Exh.79 30. Letter along with Mudammal Analysis Report by FSL, Junagadh to PSI Dhari Exh.80 31. Details of mobile holder Exh.95 32. Certificate of Evidence Act Exh.96 33. Scan Copy of Accused customer form Exh.97 34. Scan copy of Yogeshbhai customer form Exh.98 35. Mobile call details Exh.101 36. Closing Purshis Exh.102 4. Learned advocate Mr. Letter along with Mudammal Analysis Report by FSL, Junagadh to PSI Dhari Exh.80 31. Details of mobile holder Exh.95 32. Certificate of Evidence Act Exh.96 33. Scan Copy of Accused customer form Exh.97 34. Scan copy of Yogeshbhai customer form Exh.98 35. Mobile call details Exh.101 36. Closing Purshis Exh.102 4. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Raval for the appellant-accused has taken us through the record & proceedings as well as read over the evidence of the material witnesses and also taken us through the important documentary evidence in the nature of the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory, discovery panchnama and has argued that the evidence of the complainant as well as other two witnesses are not out of doubt and even the chance witness examined by the prosecution is not required to be believed as the evidence of the complainant as well as other witnesses are not consistent and suffers free from vices of material contradictions and omissions and improvement thereof and learned Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the said evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant as such. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rutvij Oza has submitted that the learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with each of the points in the impugned judgment and order and recorded the findings thereof based on the material evidence available on record. He has argued that the evidence of the complainant who herself was present at the place of incident and she was also victim of crime, indicates that the accused was behind her in order to establish illicit relationship and used to harass her and molest her, due to which, the deceased, in order to settle the issue, went there, wherein, during the course of such altercations of settlement, the accused took out the knife and gave successive blows on the body of the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. The complaint was lodged before the concerned police station inter alia narrating the details as to how the incident occurred and she also testified the same thing before the learned Trial Court and her say is also fully corroborated by other two eye-witnesses namely son of the victim as well as third person i.e. Prosecution Witness No.3-Keshubhai Merubhai Barad. The complaint was lodged before the concerned police station inter alia narrating the details as to how the incident occurred and she also testified the same thing before the learned Trial Court and her say is also fully corroborated by other two eye-witnesses namely son of the victim as well as third person i.e. Prosecution Witness No.3-Keshubhai Merubhai Barad. According to his submission, the evidence is cogent and clear and consistent with each other and the evidence duly corroborates from the material on record including the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and discovery panchnama. The learned Trial Court has rightly believed and rightly convicted the accused. Hence, no interference is called for according to his submission. 6. As per the prosecution version, the appellant-accused used to harass her by way of making phone calls and used to demand for illicit relationship with her. In pursuance thereupon, on 22.02.2010, the accused called on the cellphone of the deceased at around 6.45PM, demanding illicit relationship with his wife-the complainant, due to which, in order to settle the issue, the deceased along with his wife and son went to the place of incident. At that time, while the settlement talks were going on, the accused gave successive knife blows over the person of the deceased, because of which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot and thereby, the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is committed by the accused. 7. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined for about 21 witnesses and tendered about 36 documentary evidence and after conclusion of trial and hearing, the Trial Court recorded the conviction of the accused. 8. Prosecution Witness No. 2-Jyotiben Yogeshbhai Trivedi, wife of the deceased, has deposed that her husband was serving as Principal in the Pragati High School situated at Dudhala Village and further deposed that on 22.02.2010, while they were returning from the railway-station, at that time, the accused called on cell phone of her husband. At that time, her husband asked the accused not to harass his wife by way of making calls and requested him to stay over there to settle the issue and thereafter, they went to the place of incident along with his wife and son. At that time, her husband asked the accused not to harass his wife by way of making calls and requested him to stay over there to settle the issue and thereafter, they went to the place of incident along with his wife and son. While they were talking for settling the issue, the accused got excited and took out the knife and gave successive blows over vital part of the body of the deceased. At that time, she shouted for help and one unknown person arrived at and thereafter, the accused ran way from the place of incident. She further deposed that the incident occurred as the accused used to raise illicit demand by making calls for which in order to settle the issue, they went there. She also identified the accused before the court. She also identified the cloth as well as weapon before the court. Though extensive cross-examination is carried out by learned advocate for the appellant-accused, nothing worth has come out from such cross-examination. On the contrary, from the cross-examination itself, the evidence as regards the place of incident, making calls and meeting at the place of incident is got established by the defence itself. 9. Prosecution Witness No.3-Keshubhai Merubhai Barad has deposed that he was serving as Principal in the Sarvodaya High School, Village Pansada, Taluka Babra. He used to visit the native place i.e. Mitiyaj Village, Taluka Kodinar from Taluka Babra. On 22.02.2010, while he was proceeding towards Babra, when he reached at Dhari at about 7.15 PM, at that time, nearby Khodiyar Pan House, he heard the voice shouting for help, due to which, he went nearby Dwarkesh Garage. At that time, he saw the deceased and the accused who was giving successive blows over the body of the deceased by the knife and the deceased was requesting not to beat and thereafter, the accused went away from the place of incident. He also identified the accused before the court as well as the cloth worn by him and mudammal weapon before the court. The defence has carried out very lengthy cross-examination and except the minor contradictions, nothing worth has come out so as to impeach the testimony of said witness. 10. Prosecution witness No.5-Jay Yogeshbhai Trivedi son of the deceased and eye-witness has deposed that at the time of incident, he was studying in 5th Standard. His father was serving as Principal. The defence has carried out very lengthy cross-examination and except the minor contradictions, nothing worth has come out so as to impeach the testimony of said witness. 10. Prosecution witness No.5-Jay Yogeshbhai Trivedi son of the deceased and eye-witness has deposed that at the time of incident, he was studying in 5th Standard. His father was serving as Principal. On the day of incident, while they were at Narmdeshvar Mahadev Mandir, his father received call of the accused, due to which, his father annoyed and went thereto to settle the issue with him. While, he reached nearby Dwarkesh Garage, the accused arrived there and his father was trying to make him understand not to harass. During that course, the accused took out the knife and gave successive blows over his father due to which his father fell down. While his father was being attacked, one unknown person also arrived there and he intervened there. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital. In his cross-examination, some minor contradictions are brought on record. However, the evidence of this witness and the role of the present appellant-accused in assaulting the deceased is established. 11. The prosecution has also examined Prosecution Witness No.1-Dr. Rasmikant Mansukhlal Joshi who carried out autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Yogeshbhai Trivedi along with panel Doctor A. M. Saiyed. This witness noticed following stab injuries:- “01 Examination (1) Stab wound – Elliptical Sheepeal – Coltranen Rt side of chest medial to Rt nipple – 3cm medial 4 x 1 ½ cm in size. Margins sharp, uppenal sharp, long and plant-directed deep medially towards stream deep up rip piecing skin & sub-tracter tissue (2) Stab wound as Rt. sided chest Elliptical shape oblique 1 seen Rt auxiliary fold - on Rt sided chest in interior auxiliary line sam above & and latiol to nipple 5 X 3 cm snap maging uppenal sharp & lower and blunt directed deep medially piercing chrthall deep into lungs. On lung tissue (lobe) latel anterior 4 x 2cm in size & one cm. 3 x 1 cm in size on ante medial arpeal 01 laying two cuts through & thigh seen in lug at Rt side in middle lobe. On lung tissue (lobe) latel anterior 4 x 2cm in size & one cm. 3 x 1 cm in size on ante medial arpeal 01 laying two cuts through & thigh seen in lug at Rt side in middle lobe. (3) on Rt Foream ventrol surface mid portion Ban below Rd Medial epecendge Heart Shaped want 5 x 3 cm size having 3 ends – sharp maging lower and sharp blunt directed deep wounds into muscles. About 5 am deep piercing latting skin (sub muscles & vessels jt fracture. (4) Stab wound on Rd back of chest vertical – sharp margin uppne and sharp lower and blunt 3 2/1 x 0.5cm in size 3 2/1 latrial tomillive & below Rt scapula's lower end deep into therapeutic Cristy (5) Stab wound – um below & medial to injury No.4 Elliptral – vertical upper and sharp & lower and blunt sharp & well defined margin 4 2/1 in size deep into therapeutic Cristy. (6) Rt High posterior aspect a stab wound at 3 x ½ am in size transverse 20 cm below art sup ilice spire c sharp well defined margins medial end sharp & latael blunt directed deep into muscles & thigh abort 5 2/1 cm deep. (7) A stab wound on back of Rt shoulder plow and posteriorly to it. And ot clawide on posterior part of rt. Shoulder 3 x 1cm in size. Deep into muscles & sharp & well margin oblique in direction. Lower and sharp & upper and blunt lungs about ….is found in liver, posterior aspect of (liver) given fons and shapr margins deep into anterior abort – 3 x 1 cm size in deep upto anterior abort 3x1 cm in size at the sipe of party entry injury would collecting injuries of back chest.” It was opined that the injuries were ante-mortem which were sufficient to cause death and further opined that such injuries were possible by mudammal Article No.3 knife. 12. Over and above the oral evidence, the prosecution has also filed the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory in the nature of serology and other reports wherein it was also revealed that the blood stains of the accused and the deceased soiled and blood stains were also confirmed. 12. Over and above the oral evidence, the prosecution has also filed the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory in the nature of serology and other reports wherein it was also revealed that the blood stains of the accused and the deceased soiled and blood stains were also confirmed. The sari worn by the wife of the deceased and knife were also soiled and the same blood group was came to be confirmed during the course of analysis before the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Forensic Science Laboratory also confirmed the wound and cut found over the cloth worn by the deceased. The evidence in the nature of call details came to be proved during the proceedings of the trial also clearly indicate that the accused called the deceased on 22.02.2010 at about 6.45PM and thereafter, the deceased for settling the issue soon after went at the place of incident that clearly corroborates the evidence of all the three witnesses. 13. We have gone through the entire record & proceedings as well as material evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it appears that the learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of all three witnesses to the incident. In our appreciation of evidence on record, we are also fully satisfied with the evidence of the wife of the deceased as well as son who happen to be accompanied the deceased at the time of incident while the accused attacked the deceased and their presence not only came to be proved by third oral evidence but other circumstances clearly indicate their presence at the place of incident and narration as regards as to how the incident occurred and how the accused gave successive blows over the deceased is also getting fully corroborated from other evidence on record which are in the nature of Forensic Science Laboratory reports as well as call record also. Over and above the oral and documentary evidence, the weapon used by the accused at the time of incident came to be discovered upon disclosure statement made by the accused. Panchnama came to be drawn and upon disclosure statement made by the accused, he disclosed the concealed mudammal article No.3. Over and above the oral and documentary evidence, the weapon used by the accused at the time of incident came to be discovered upon disclosure statement made by the accused. Panchnama came to be drawn and upon disclosure statement made by the accused, he disclosed the concealed mudammal article No.3. The blood came to be confirmed of deceased which was found over such knife, and it also clearly links with the crime in question. 14. From the overall analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed during the trial, it is established that soon after the incident, within one hour, the complaint came to be lodged before the concerned police station and the accused also came to be arrested within 24 hours whereupon the cloth of the witnesses who accompanied with the deceased were also soiled with the blood stains of the deceased. Considering the evidence on record fully corroborated and other circumstantial evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court has rightly believed the case of the prosecution and convicted the appellant accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, no interference in called for. 15. For the above reasons, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajula, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2011 is hereby confirmed. R & P be sent back to the Trial Court concerned forthwith. 16. At the end, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution and no independent witness was examined in order to prove the incident in question and therefore, accordingly, the evidence of above three eye-witnesses could not have been believed as such. We have perused the evidence on record whereupon, though panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution, upon making disclosure statement, mudammal article No.3 came to be discovered and the same blood found over such weapon also confirmed blood group of the deceased and therefore, though the panchas have not supported the case, the guilty came to be proved from the evidence of the police official who had drawn the panchnama. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon such panchnama. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon such panchnama. So far as the contention of non-examination of independent witness to the incident is concerned, on going through the recitals revealed from the FIR wife and son not only there at the place of incident, one unknown person has revealed so far as the incident in question is concerned and all three witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the contention raised by learned advocate for the accused is devoid of any merit.