JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. Appellant challenged the judgment of conviction awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No. 28/2015 by which appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution against the appellant can be summarized as under. (i) Deceased Anita was married with appellant in the year 1995. She delivered three sons from the appellant. Appellant always used to suspect the character of his wife Anita. He was always quarrelling with her and beating her. Anita disclosed the said ill-treatment and beating to her parents on several times. On 2-10-2014, there was a religious function at the house of father of Anita. Anita along with children and appellant came to the house of her father at Village Chichghat. On 3-10-2014, at about 10-11 a.m. appellant and his children went to his Village Kinhala. On 3-10-2014, in the evening at about 7.00 p.m., Anita was taking rest along with her mother in the courtyard. Her father was giving swing to cradle of his grandson. Appellant came with dagger (suri) and gave blow on chest of Anita for 2-3 times. Father of Anita caught hold the appellant and snatched dagger. Mother of deceased, her sister-in-law and others rushed to the spot. Brother of deceased, namely, Vasanta taken her to the hospital at Yavatmal. She was declared dead by doctor. Father of deceased, namely, Punaji Jadhao lodged report, Exhibit 48. Crime No. 90/2014 was registered against the appellant. (ii) API Kharde investigated the crime. He sent dead body for postmortem, went to the spot, prepared spot panchanama etc., seized clothes of deceased, accused and also weapon i.e. dagger (suri) in presence of panchas, recorded statements of witnesses, sent the seized property to the Chemical Analyser. After complete investigation, he filed charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class which in turn committed to the Court of Sessions at Yavatmal. (iii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 7. Same was read-over and explained to the accused/appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted appellant as stated above. 3. (iii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 7. Same was read-over and explained to the accused/appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted appellant as stated above. 3. Heard learned counsel Shri Chande appearing on behalf of Shri Kalsi, Advocate for the appellant. He has pointed out omissions and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and submitted that evidence of eye witnesses are not reliable. Learned counsel has submitted that appeal be allowed and appellant be acquitted for the offence charged against him. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Pathan for the State/respondent. He has submitted that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 are the eye witnesses of the incident. They have stated that there was religious program on the earlier day of the incident. Appellant along with his deceased wife and children had been to the house of his father-in-law. On the day of incident in the morning at about 10-11 a.m., appellant along with his children went to his Village, Kinhala. In the evening, deceased Anita along with her mother were taking rest on bed0sheet in the courtyard. Her father Punaji was giving swing to cradle of his grandson, that time, appellant came there and gave blows of knife on the chest of Anita. Punaji caught hold the appellant. Anita was taken to the hospital of Dr. Arvind Pawar. He declared her brought dead. Evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 is well corroborated with each other. Some minor omissions in the evidence of witnesses who are rustic villagers not affected the prosecution case. 5. Evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 is well corroborated by the medical evidence. P.W. 8 Dr. Vinod Bhalerao has stated that on 4-10-2014, he has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Anita and found following external injuries. [1] Stab wound over left side of upper anterior part of the chest between 2nd and 3rd rib of size 4 x 1.8 x cavity deep approximately 4.3 cm., elliptical in shape, margins clean cut and blood infiltrated, obliquely placed with inner end lower than upper outer end. The maximum width was 3 mm. The upper end was 7cm. From mid clavicular point, 7 cm. From midline and 34 cm. From anterior superior iliase spine. The maximum width was 3 mm. The upper end was 7cm. From mid clavicular point, 7 cm. From midline and 34 cm. From anterior superior iliase spine. Both angles were acute. Medial end was undermined. Track of the wound skin-subcutaneous tissue – muscles of chest wall. Direction of the wound upward, backward and medial. [2] Stab wound over right side of posterior part of middle chest between 6th and 7th ribs of size 3 x 1 x cavity deep, on approximation 3.5 cm, elleptical in shape, margins clean cut and blood infiltrated. Stab wound obliquely placed with inner end lower than upper outer end. The maximum width 3 mm. The upper end was 22 cm from left acromion, 13 cm from midline and 107 cm from hill. Both angles were acute and lateral end was undermined. Track of the wound – skin – subcutaneous tissue muscles of back — intercostal space between 6th and 7th ribs – intercostal muscles — right 6th and 7th ribs pleura right lung. Direction of the wound upward, forwardward and medially. 6. According to P.W. 8, both the injuries were ante-mortem. From perusal of the evidence of Medical Officer, it is clear that both the injuries were on the chest. Appellant inflicted both the injuries by dagger (suri). The appellant gave forcible blow. Right lung of deceased was ruptured. This itself shows that appellant had intention to kill deceased. 7. Evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 show that on the earlier day of incident, appellant along with his deceased wife and children came to the house of his father-in-law. On the day of incident, in the morning at about 10-11 a.m., appellant along with his children went to his Village, Kinhala. On the same day, in the evening, he came with preparation having dagger in his hand. His wife Anita was taking rest with her mother in the courtyard. Appellant stabbed her by dagger on her chest. Appellant gave both blows of dagger on vital part of the body of deceased. Therefore, it is clear that appellant had intention to kill deceased. Evidence of witnesses also corroborated by Chemical Analyser’s Report. Chemical Analyser Report, Exhibit 63 shows that dagger (suri) was stained with human blood. Clothes of deceased and accused were stained with blood group ‘O’. Blood group of deceased not determined. Blood group of appellant was determined as ‘A’. Therefore, it is clear that appellant had intention to kill deceased. Evidence of witnesses also corroborated by Chemical Analyser’s Report. Chemical Analyser Report, Exhibit 63 shows that dagger (suri) was stained with human blood. Clothes of deceased and accused were stained with blood group ‘O’. Blood group of deceased not determined. Blood group of appellant was determined as ‘A’. Therefore, it is clear that blood on the clothes of deceased and accused were of deceased. Appellant not explained as to how his clothes were stained with blood. 8. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of incident, appellant with an intention to kill deceased by giving two blows on the vital part of body of deceased by dangerous weapon i.e. dagger (suri). Learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is well reasoned. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order : ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.