JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Appellant assailed the judgment of conviction awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution against appellant in short is as under. (i) Appellant was always having quarrel with his cousin brother Ashok and deceased. Appellant was alleging that his cousin brother Ashok who was Peon in Gram Panchayat concealed some documents in respect of allotment of house to him. On the day of incident, appellant went to the office of Gram Panchayat. He directed his cousin brother Ashok to leave the office of Gram Panchayat. He wanted to damage the articles in the Gram Panchayat. Accused was having one pointed object. P.W. 8 Ashok came to his house. He narrated incident to his wife. At that time, he heard noise of quarrel. P.W. 8 Ashok is handicapped person. He could not immediately reached to the spot of incident. His wife, mother and his daughter went towards the spot of incident. P.W. 8 Ashok followed them. (ii) P.W. 2, her mother-in-law and daughter reached to the spot of incident. They saw verbal quarrel was going on between appellant and deceased Arun. Appellant was having one spear. Appellant gave one blow of spear on the head of deceased Arun. Deceased fell down. Again appellant stabbed deceased on his abdomen. (iii) P.W. 2 with her husband and some villagers taken the deceased to the Government Hospital, Yavatmal. Deceased succumbed to injuries during treatment. P.W. 2 lodged report in the police station on 25-8-2015 at about 9.30 a.m. Crime was registered against the appellant. API Randhir investigated the crime. PSI Waghule carried out some part of investigation. He visited the spot of incident, prepared spot panchanama, Exhibit 25, seized weapon iron rod/pipe having spear like shape as per seizure panchanama, Exhibit 27 and arrested the accused. (iv) P.W. 13 Randhir recorded statements of witnesses. After complete investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha and same was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha for trial. (v) Charge was framed at Exhibit 2. Same was read-over and explained to the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (iv) P.W. 13 Randhir recorded statements of witnesses. After complete investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darwha and same was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha for trial. (v) Charge was framed at Exhibit 2. Same was read-over and explained to the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (vi) The prosecution has examined following witnesses. (1) P.W. 1 Sau. Suman Balaji Mankar (Exhibit 14) (2) P.W. 2 Sau. Kamlabai Ashokrao Kudmethe (Exhibit 15) (3) P.W. 3 Sukhlal Ramu Rathod (Exhibit 18) (4) P.W. 4 Sau. Sapana Vijendra Tekam (Exhibit 20) (5) P.W. 5 Kawadu Mahadeo Madkam (Exhibit 21) (6) P.W. 6 Raju Madhukar Rathod (Exhibit 22) (7) P.W. 7 Sk. Rehan Sk. Usman (Exhibit 24) (8) P.W. 8 Ashok Sakharam Kudmethe (Exhibit 31) (9) P.W. 9 Smt. Kausalyabai Sakharam Kudmethe (Exhibit 32) (10) P.W. 10 Bhaurao Chandrabhan Tale (Exhibit 35) (11) P.W. 11 Shri Ambadas Laxmanrao Kawre (Exhibit 36) (12) P.W. 12 Dr. Kranti Sunderrao Raut (Exhibit 38) (13) P.W. 13 Naresh Ramesh Randhir (Exhibit 42) and (14) P.W. 14 Ravi Baijnathrao Waghule (Exhibit 51) (vii) Learned trial Court recorded statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution and defence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri Hajare for the appellant. He has submitted that weapon of offence which was seized by police is not proved. P.W. 4 not identified the weapon shown to her before the Court. Witnesses are interested for the conviction of appellant. There was enmity between the appellant and material witnesses. Their evidence is not reliable. Independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. Blood was not found on the seized weapon as per C.A. report. There is a delay of 21 Hours for lodging the report. Learned trial Court not considered the material evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out judgment in the case of Raju Laxman Pardhe Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2196. Learned counsel has submitted that there are material omissions and contradictions, therefore, witnesses are not reliable. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out judgment in the case of Raju Laxman Pardhe Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 2196. Learned counsel has submitted that there are material omissions and contradictions, therefore, witnesses are not reliable. At last, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Heard Ms. Jaipurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. She has submitted that P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are the eye witnesses of the incident. Deceased was the real brother of P.W. 8 Ashok. Appellant was always quarreled with P.W. 8 saying that he had concealed some documents of Gram Panchayat. On the day of incident, appellant went to the office of Gram Panchayat and threatened P.W. 8. P.W. 8 came to his house. He narrated the incident to his wife (P.W. 2). 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that appellant quarreled with deceased who was real brother of P.W. 8. Appellant was having iron rod/pipe having shape like spear. He gave blow of that weapon on the head of deceased. When deceased fell down, he again gave blow of spear on the abdomen of deceased. P.W. 2 – complainant along with her mother-in-law rushed to the spot of incident and saw the incident of quarrel between the appellant and deceased. They saw the incident of causing injury by appellant. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. As per the evidence of Medical Officer, she noticed two major injuries on the person of deceased i.e. one injury on head and other on abdomen. Deceased died in the hospital at Yavatmal. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is direct evidence of trustworthy witnesses regarding the commission of crime. Nothing is brought on record to show that appellant is falsely involved. Cross-examination of the witnesses show that false defence is taken by the appellant. Not a single omission or contradiction is brought on record in evidence of any of the witnesses. Their evidence is trustworthy regarding the commission of crime, therefore, motive to commit offence loses its relevance. Nothing is brought on record to show that appellant is falsely involved. Cross-examination of the witnesses show that false defence is taken by the appellant. Not a single omission or contradiction is brought on record in evidence of any of the witnesses. Their evidence is trustworthy regarding the commission of crime, therefore, motive to commit offence loses its relevance. In support of her submission she pointed out decision in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2010 (12) SCC 91 . 9. P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 10 who were Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and Police Patil of Village Lasina have stated in their evidence that appellant had been to the Gram Panchayat Office along with axe. He damaged furniture of Gram Panchayat. Report of that incident was lodged with the police. This incident was prior to the incident in this case. P.W. 13 API Shri Randhir has stated in his evidence that “during investigation, it was transpired that on 8-1-2015 accused had committed mischief by damaging the furniture of the office of Gram Panchayat, Lasina and said matter is pending before the Court. The copy of the FIR was collected. The extract of crime register bears his signature and it is at Exhibit 48.” 10. The incident stated by above witnesses clearly show that appellant used to go to the office of Gram Panchayat and used to threaten the office bearers of Gram Panchayat. This evidence corroborates the evidence of P.W. 8 Ashok who is the cousin brother of appellant. As per his evidence, on the day of incident, appellant had been to Gram Panchayat office having a rod/pipe in his hand. He asked him to remove himself from that office. Therefore, P.W. 8 returned to his house. 11. P.W. 8 has stated in his evidence that he returned to his house and narrated the incident to his wife. At that time, he heard noise of quarrel, therefore, his wife and mother went out of the house. He being a handicapped person could not rush to the spot of incident immediately. When he reached there, he saw that his brother Arun was having injuries over his head and abdomen. 12. At that time, he heard noise of quarrel, therefore, his wife and mother went out of the house. He being a handicapped person could not rush to the spot of incident immediately. When he reached there, he saw that his brother Arun was having injuries over his head and abdomen. 12. P.W. 2 wife of P.W.8 has stated in her evidence that her husband P. W. 8 returned to the house at about 1.30 p.m. He told her that appellant had been to Gram Panchayat Office and asked him to go out of the office as he wanted to damage the premises. At that time they heard the noise of quarrel. Therefore, she and her mother-in-law rushed towards the spot. There is a house of one Kawadu at a distance of 100 feet from her house. They saw verbal quarrel was going on between the appellant and Arun. Appellant was armed with spear. He gave blow of spear on the head of Arun. Arun fell down on the ground. Thereafter accused gave another blow of spear on the abdomen of Arun. She raised alarm. Villagers gathered there. P.W. 2, her husband brought one minidor and taken deceased to the hospital at Yavatmal. He died during treatment. 13. P.W. 4 has stated in her evidence that she was at the house of her parents for delivery. At about 1.00 p.m. on the day of incident, her father Ashok returned from Gram Panchayat. He told that appellant had quarreled with him. At about 1.30 p.m., she heard hue and cry towards the road. Therefore, her mother and grandmother rushed towards the spot. She also followed them. She saw appellant assaulting her uncle Arun by iron rod on his head. He again gave blow of iron rod on the stomach of his uncle when he fell down. 14. P.W. 9 mother of deceased has stated that she was present in the house. At about 2.00 p.m., she heard the quarrel. She rushed to the spot. She saw appellant gave blow of iron rod on the head of Arun and thereafter gave blow of rod on his abdomen. Therefore, Arun died in the hospital. 15. From the cross-examination of material witnesses, namely, P.W. Kamlabai P.W. 4 Sapana and P.W. 8 Ashok, it appears that accused had taken defence that P.W. 8 Ashok had quarreled with the appellant. He was under the influence of liquor. Therefore, Arun died in the hospital. 15. From the cross-examination of material witnesses, namely, P.W. Kamlabai P.W. 4 Sapana and P.W. 8 Ashok, it appears that accused had taken defence that P.W. 8 Ashok had quarreled with the appellant. He was under the influence of liquor. He tried to give blow of iron rod/ spear to the appellant. When deceased Arun intervened, accidentally that spear struck to him. All these witnesses denied this suggestion. Except this suggestion, nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of any of the material witnesses to point out any omission or contradiction. 16. P.W. 9 has stated in her cross-examination that when she reached to the spot of incident, at that time, Arun was lying on the ground. This particular evidence is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of other material witnesses. Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 clearly show that appellant had quarreled with deceased. Appellant was having weapon like spear. He gave two blows on the person of deceased. Appellant gave one blow on the head of deceased. When appellant fell down on the ground, he gave another blow on the abdomen of deceased. 17. This material evidence is corroborated by Medical Officer Dr. Kranti Raut (P.W. 12). She has stated in her evidence that on 25-82-015, she had conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Arun Sakharam Kudmethe. She found following injuries. (a) Lacerated Wound over left high parietal region, obliquely placed having size of 5.5 cm x 2.5 cm x scalp deep with irregular margins. (b) Stab injury over epigastric region, horizontally placed having size of 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, on approximation 4.2 cm in length with lateral angle acute and medical angle obtuse with clear cut margins. This injury was 11.5 cm below the right nipple and 6 cm above the umbilicus and 97 cm above right medial melleolus. It was directed downwards, inward and laterally. (c) Contusion over anterio medial surface of 1/3 rd of left leg, irregularly placed of size 4 cm x 2cm. On cut section blood infulteration seen in underlying tissue. (d) Intravenus puncture marks over left cubital fosa (as part of treatment). On internal examination of the dead body, we found under scalp contusion over left high parietal region of size 6 cm x 4 cm reddish in colour corresponding to injury no. 1 stated above. On cut section blood infulteration seen in underlying tissue. (d) Intravenus puncture marks over left cubital fosa (as part of treatment). On internal examination of the dead body, we found under scalp contusion over left high parietal region of size 6 cm x 4 cm reddish in colour corresponding to injury no. 1 stated above. There was evidence of stab injury to greater omentum, mesentry of transverse column and ascending column, with clear cut margins and reddish in colour. This injury was corresponding to injury no. 2 stated above. 18. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, injury no. 2 mentioned in column no. 17 and corresponding injury mentioned in column no. 20 of postmortem report, Exhibit 39 were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature. Deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage following stab injury over abdomen. Major injuries were on head and abdomen. P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 have not made any exaggeration. They have stated that appellant gave blow of iron rod/pipe (spear) on the head of deceased. Deceased fell down. Thereafter appellant gave blow of that weapon on the abdomen. 19. Evidence of eye witnesses also corroborated by seizure of weapon. As per the evidence of P.W. 7, clothes of deceased and accused were seized in his presence. C.A. reports are at Exhibit Nos. 11 to 13. As per the Exhibit 11, Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 were having human blood. Exhibit 1, 3, 5 and 9 stained with blood of group 'A'. Blood group of deceased not determined. Blood group of accused/appellant also not determined. 20. C.A. reports do not show the blood on weapon but weapon was examined by the Medical Officer, P.W. 12. She has stated in her evidence that on 5-10-2015, she received query letter from the Investigating Officer along with weapon. On examination of weapon, they/panel of doctors opined that injury nos. 1 to 3 in column no. 17 of postmortem report were possible by the said weapon. Accordingly, they have given their opinion vide Exhibit 40. She has identified the weapon, Article 'C' before the Court was the same weapon which she had examined. 21. Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 is well supported by the evidence of Medical Officer, P.W. 12. 17 of postmortem report were possible by the said weapon. Accordingly, they have given their opinion vide Exhibit 40. She has identified the weapon, Article 'C' before the Court was the same weapon which she had examined. 21. Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 is well supported by the evidence of Medical Officer, P.W. 12. From the perusal of cross-examination of material witnesses, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve their testimonies. 22. Learned counsel Shri Hajare relied on the decision in the case of Raju Laxman Pardhe Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra). The facts in the cited decision was very much different. The material eye witness whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, he was called by the defence. This material witness has stated in his evidence that there was a scuffle between deceased and accused persons. Deceased himself was having gupti. He grappled with accused no. 1. They both fell down and gupti in the hands of deceased struck to his own chest. Therefore, Division Bench of this Court come to the conclusion that the so called eye witnesses were interested and therefore, their evidence was not relied on. In the present case, nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of any of the eye witnesses. Not a single omission or contradiction is brought on record. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. 23. In the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. In the present case, nothing is brought on record in the cross-examination of any of the eye witnesses. Not a single omission or contradiction is brought on record. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. 23. In the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal (cited supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 307, 323 – murder of wife – attempt to murder – motive – PW 1 lodged Ejahar stating that his father appellant came to their house at about midnight and attacked his mother and younger brother with a knife and inflicted severe injuries on them – conviction upheld by High Court on ground that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – issue of motive becomes irrelevant when there is direct evidence of a trustworthy witness regarding commission of crime – particularly when a son and other closely related persons depose against appellant, proof of motive by direct evidence loses its relevance – ocular evidence of P.W. 1 supported by medical evidence – nothing on record to show that there could be any reason for PW 1, son of appellant, to falsely implicate his father for murder or other witnesses – nothing on record to show that appellant had received any grave or sudden provocation from victims or that appellant had lost his power of self control from any action of either of victims – accused liable to be convicted for murder. 24. Cross-examination of P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 show that nothing is brought in their cross-examination to disbelieve their versions. They are eye witnesses of the incident. Whole cross-examination revealed that suggestions were given to the witnesses that P.W. 8 quarreled with the appellants. He went to the house. He was under the influence of liquor, brought the spear like iron rod/pipe and tried to stab the appellant/accused. When deceased Arun intervened, accidentally, stabbed to him. This particular suggestions were denied by all the witnesses. Moreover, it was not possible for P.W. 8 to attack the appellant because P.W. 8 has stated in his evidence that he is a handicapped person and, therefore, he could not rush to the spot immediately. This particular evidence is not denied by the defence. Hence, it is clear the false defence was taken by the appellant. 25. Moreover, it was not possible for P.W. 8 to attack the appellant because P.W. 8 has stated in his evidence that he is a handicapped person and, therefore, he could not rush to the spot immediately. This particular evidence is not denied by the defence. Hence, it is clear the false defence was taken by the appellant. 25. The evidence of eye witnesses, more particularly, P.W. 2, P.W. 4, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 proved that appellant quarreled with deceased Arun and killed him by iron rod/pipe (spear). Their evidence is supported by Medical Officer. As per her evidence she found two major injuries which resulted death. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the report lodged by P.W. 2 and submitted that there is delay of near about 21 Hours. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 8. Her husband P.W. 8 is a handicapped person. Incident took place at about 1.30 – 2.00 p.m. She with the help of other villagers and her husband taken the deceased to the Government Hospital, Yavatmal. In the hospital, deceased died. On the next day i.e. on 25-8-2015 early in the morning at about 9.30 a.m., she lodged report in the Police Station. Real brother of her husband died and, therefore, she must be in a sorrow state of condition and therefore, this delay is not fatal. 27. Prosecution has established by cogent evidence of eye witnesses that appellant quarreled with deceased Arun, gave blow of iron pipe/spear on the head and then to stomach of deceased. This evidence is well corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer (P.W. 12). There is nothing on record to show that eye witnesses have falsely implicated the appellant. 28. Evidence of respectable persons of the village, namely, Police Patil, Deputy Sarpanch, Sarpanch show that appellant had damaged the articles of Gram Panchayat. This show the conduct of appellant. It also corroborates with the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 8. P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 have stated that appellant was quarreling with P.W. 8 alleging that he had concealed some material documents of Gram Panchayat in respect of allotment of house to the appellant. Appellant was demanding the land where the house of P.W. 8 is situated. Therefore, appellant had a grudge with P.W. 8 and his deceased brother. 29. P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 have stated that appellant was quarreling with P.W. 8 alleging that he had concealed some material documents of Gram Panchayat in respect of allotment of house to the appellant. Appellant was demanding the land where the house of P.W. 8 is situated. Therefore, appellant had a grudge with P.W. 8 and his deceased brother. 29. Evidence adduced by the prosecution is trustworthy, cogent and reliable. Learned trial Court appreciated all the material evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, we find no merit in the appeal. Therefore, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court. (iii) Fees of the learned counsel Shri R. D. Hajare appointed by the Legal Services Authority is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.