JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order of the trial Court dated 16.12.2016, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 341 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 22.4.2012, Mamta wife of the complainant had gone with her sister Santosh to the market for making purchases regarding her (Santosh) wedding. At about 1:00 PM. when they were returning home after getting clothes stitched, appellant caught them on the way and stopped them. Appellant gave knife blows to Santosh and when Mamta intervened to save her sister, she was also inflicted injuries by the appellant. Injured were removed to the hospital. However, Santosh was declared dead by the hospital authorities. Mamta had suffered serious injuries. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 302, 307, 341 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Act. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. No occurrence as alleged had taken place. 6. Appellant did not examine any witnesses in his defence. 7. Learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment/order ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302, 307, 324, 341 IPC and 4/25 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, appellant was engaged to Santosh about two years prior to the incident. Santosh had visited the appellant in his house. Complainant and his wife did not approve of the same. Due to this reason, appellant has been falsely involved in this case, Assuming that the appellant had inflicted injuries to Santosh as well as Mamta, at the most, it could be said to be a case falling under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. 9. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Present case relates to murder of Santosh. In the incident, Mamta sister of the deceased had also suffered injury. 9. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Present case relates to murder of Santosh. In the incident, Mamta sister of the deceased had also suffered injury. Thus, case rests on eye-witness account. There was talk regarding marriage of appellant with Santosh. However, marriage of the appellant with Santosh did not materialize. Thereafter, marriage of Santosh was fixed with another person and she had gone to make purchases for her wedding on the day of incident. 11. Mamta while appearing in the witness box as PW-7 has deposed that on the day of occurrence she had gone with her sister Santosh to make purchases regarding the wedding of her sister Santosh. While they were returning home they were intercepted by the appellant and he inflicted injuries to Santosh with a knife. When she intervened to rescue her sister, she was also given knife injury by the appellant. They were removed to the hospital for treatment. Santosh, however, succumbed to her injuries. PW-8 Sita Devi mother-in-law of Mamta has duly corroborated the statement of PW-7. 12. Exhibit-92 is the postmortem examination report of the deceased. A perusal of the same reveals that the deceased had suffered four stab wounds, i.e. on her abdomen and chest. As per the medical opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was due to injury to the heart and lung, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 13. Exhibit P-24 is the medico-legal-examination report of Mamta. A perusal of the same reveals that Mamta has suffered one stab wound in her abdomen. 14. Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary, PW-15 has proved the postmortem examination report of deceased Santosh as well as medico-legal-examination report of injured Mamta. This witness further deposed that after going through the X-ray report of Mamta, it was opined that injury suffered by Mamta was dangerous to life. 15. Thus, ocular version in the present case is duly corroborated by medical evidence. Statements of PW-7 Mamta and PW-8 Sita Devi being natural inspire confidence. Presence of PW-7 at the spot cannot be doubted as she has suffered an injury in the occurrence. PW-7 and PW-8 had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. PW-7 was crossexamined at length, but her testimony with regard to the involvement of the appellant in this case could not be shaken. 16. PW-7 and PW-8 had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. PW-7 was crossexamined at length, but her testimony with regard to the involvement of the appellant in this case could not be shaken. 16. There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present case could be said to be a case falling under Section 304 part 1 IPC. Appellant had inflicted four stab wounds to the deceased and had inflicted one stab wound to Mamta. Since, the deceased has suffered four stab wounds, it can be inferred that the appellant had the intention to commit the murder of Santosh. Hence, the present case falls within the mischief of Section 302 IPC. 17. Since, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, learned trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the charges framed against him. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 18. Dismissed.