JUDGMENT : G.A. SANAP, J. 1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 07.08.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2017, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows: PW-1 is the informant. On the basis of his report the first information report was registered on 04.11.2016 against the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant, his mother, father and three brothers are residing at Ambarnathgaon, Ulhas Nagar. The appellant who is the son of maternal aunt of the informant used to reside at Ambarnathgaon, Ulhas Nagar. The family of the informant and the appellant had gone to Ulhas Nagar for doing work. They had come to their native place for Diwali Festival of 2016. On 01.11.2016 the entire family of the informant went to the house of maternal uncle Samadhan Bhakare R/o. Sagwan Gairan on the eve of Bhaubij. On 03.11.2016, the appellant also came to the house of Samadhan Bhakare. They stayed their for festival of Bhaubij. It is the case of the prosecution that the father of the informant i.e. deceased Baburao Khonde was a mediator to settle the marriage of appellant with Sau Dipali. The marriage took place in the year 2014. The appellant, after marriage, found that his wife is mentally retarded to some extent. The appellant would say that the deceased has spoiled his life inasmuch as the deceased had arranged and solemnized his marriage with the mentally retarded/imbalanced girl. The appellant made grievance about it with the deceased and requested deceased to extend help to take a divorce from his wife. The appellant threatened the deceased that, if he failed to negotiate and settle the dispute then he would kill him. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.11.2016, at about 5:00 p.m., the informant, his brother Gopal Baburao Khonde, cousin sister Komal Vijay Bhakre (daughter of maternal uncle), cousin Umesh Samadhan Bhakre (son of maternal uncle) were chitchatting in the house of maternal uncle Vijay Bhakre. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.11.2016, at about 5:00 p.m., the informant, his brother Gopal Baburao Khonde, cousin sister Komal Vijay Bhakre (daughter of maternal uncle), cousin Umesh Samadhan Bhakre (son of maternal uncle) were chitchatting in the house of maternal uncle Vijay Bhakre. At that time, they heard the noise of quarrel from outside. They come outside the house. They saw that the appellant was inflicting blows with knife on the neck and hand of his father (deceased). 3. After seeing this, they made hue and cry. The appellant fled from the spot. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. After this informant went to the police Station and lodged the report. On the basis of the report, Sangramsingh Damodar Patil (PW-7) attached to Buldhana City Police Station registered the crime bearing No. 435 of 2016 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. He conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and drew the panchanama of the spot. He collected the sample of soil and blood mixed soil. In presence of two panchas he drew the inquest panchanama of the dead body and forwarded the dead body to General Hospital, Buldhana for post-mortem. He arrested the accused on 04.11.2016. The knife, the weapon of the offence, was discovered at the instance of the appellant. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. 4. The learned Sessions Judge vide Exh. 15 framed the charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation and analysis of the evidence found the charge against the accused proved. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant, as above. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has come before this Court in appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga for the appellant and Smt. Mayuri Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have perused the record and proceedings. 6. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has come before this Court in appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga for the appellant and Smt. Mayuri Deshmukh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have perused the record and proceedings. 6. The learned Advocate for the appellant Shri R. M. Daga submitted that reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of eye witnesses Vishal Baburao Khonde (PW-1) and Gopal Baburao Khonde (PW-3) inasmuch as they have not stated how the deceased and the accused came to the spot. He submitted that the evidence of these witnesses would show that they heard the quarrel. However, there is no evidence as to what happened before the actual assault. The learned Advocate submitted that the PW-1 and 3 are the sons of deceased and as such interested witnesses. He submitted that there is no corroborative evidence, from independent source, to the evidence of PW-1 and 3 and therefore, based on their interested version the accused could not have been convicted. The learned Advocate further submitted that the evidence of Dr. Rajendra Ramlal Chavhan (PW-5), who conducted post-mortem on the dead body, is silent on the point that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned Advocate submitted that the CA reports at Exhs. 47 and 48 were not specifically put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the submission of the learned Advocate, therefore, the same cannot be used against the accused. The learned Advocate submitted that in this case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In the alternative, the learned Advocate submitted that this is a case of a single blow. There was no repeated assault on the deceased. The medical officer (PW-5) has not given a categorical opinion that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death and therefore, at the most the learned Sessions Judge ought to have convicted the appellant for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 8. 8. The learned APP Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, submitted that the PW-1 and 3 have placed on record the first hand account of the incident seen by them. The learned APP submitted that without witnessing the incident they would not have been able to narrate the same consistently and with precision. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses is concrete, cogent and reliable. The learned APP submitted that the defence of the accused that the deceased fell on the tin shade compound and sustained injury cannot be accepted in the teeth of the oral evidence of the eye witnesses and other corroborative evidence. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of PW-5 supports the case of the prosecution that the deceased died due to the injury sustained at the hands of the accused. The learned APP submitted that Medical Officer PW-5 in his evidence has deposed that the injuries were possible by the weapon referred to him by the police and death is possible due to said injuries. In the submission of the learned APP this statement made by the medical officer would impliedly indicate that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The learned APP submitted that in this case the prosecution has proved that act done by the appellant was with the intention of causing death. The intention has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned APP submitted that the Sessions Judge in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically put CA reports at Exhs.47 and 48 to him. The learned APP submitted that blood was found on the clothes of the appellant. The appellant had not sustained any bleeding injury and therefore, in the absence of any explanation in this respect on the part of the appellant, the evidence of the prosecution and the CA report assumes importance. 9. We have minutely perused the evidence of the witnesses. Before we proceed to appreciate the evidence of the eye witnesses and other witnesses at the threshold it would be necessary to consider the evidence of Medical officer Dr. Rajendra Chavhan (PW-5). The deceased succumbed to the injury on the spot on 04.11.2016. PW-5 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body on 05.11.2016. PW-5 found the following injuries on the dead body. Rajendra Chavhan (PW-5). The deceased succumbed to the injury on the spot on 04.11.2016. PW-5 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body on 05.11.2016. PW-5 found the following injuries on the dead body. “(i) Large incise wound (cut) seen on neck, horizontally at the level of thyroid cartilage anteriorly and upto both lateral sides neck of size 22 c.m.X7c.m.X5c.m. Trachea oesophagus and both carotids cutted and exposed to outer side with all internal muscular layers. Internal vessels shows sharp cutting edges with blood clots. (ii) Incised wound present on left hand seen on index, middle, ring and little finger horizontally. On index finger, sharp cut seen on upto distal phalynx with expulsion of nail. (iii) Small abrasion present on both knee joint of size 0.5 c.m.X0.5 c.m. (iv) Abrasion present on right forearm of size 2 c.m. X 1c.m.” All these injuries have been noted down in column No. 17 and 18 of the post-mortem report at Exh. 32. PW-5 has recorded in post-mortem report as well as deposed before the Court that the above injuries were antemortem injuries. On the basis of his examination he opined that the cause of death was due to shock due to excision of air way and large vessels due to cut throat by sharp weapon. Perusal of the post-mortem report would show that the throat of the deceased was cut. It is further seen that the trachea oesophagus and both carotids were cut and exposed to outer side with all internal muscular layers. The deceased succumbed to the throat injury instantaneously. The injury on the neck was horizontal. The injury No. (ii) was incised wound on the left hand of the deceased. This fact would indicate that the appellant inflicted a blow with knife on the left hand of the deceased near index, middle, ring and little finger. There was no bleeding injury on the person of the appellant. His medical examination would show that there was linear abrasion on dorsal aspect of right hand of the appellant. 10. The prosecution has relied upon the inquest panchanama of the dead body to seek a corroboration to the medical evidence. PW-1 and 3 have narrated the first hand account of the incident. The defence of the appellant is that the deceased fell on the tin shade fencing and sustained injuries and died. 10. The prosecution has relied upon the inquest panchanama of the dead body to seek a corroboration to the medical evidence. PW-1 and 3 have narrated the first hand account of the incident. The defence of the appellant is that the deceased fell on the tin shade fencing and sustained injuries and died. In our view, this defence is not probable in view of the evidence brought on record. Sanjay Kashiram Ahir (PW-2) is the panch witness in whose presence the panchnama of spot was drawn. He has stated that the height of the tin shade compound/fencing from the ground level is 4 Ft. The panchanama was drawn on 04.11.2016 at 19:25 hours. The incident occurred at about 5:00 p.m. It is therefore, proved that within two hours from the occurrence of the incident the spot was inspected and the panchanama was drawn. If the deceased had fallen on tin shade fencing and sustained such serious injuries there ought to have been ample blood on tin fencing. The defence of the appellant is also not probable because the spot of incident is 4 Ft. away from the fencing. In view of this evidence, we have no hesitation to conclude that the deceased died a homicidal death. It is further pertinent to note that if the evidence of medical officer is considered in totality of the facts then it would show that the injury to the throat was the cause of death of the deceased. The dimensions of the injuries have been mentioned in the post-mortem report as well as deposed before the Court. The nature of the injury and the dimensions, coupled with the evidence of the medical officer that the injury could cause the death, would be sufficient to negative the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that in the absence of a specific opinion by the medical officer that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, the reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of the medical officer. 11. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant had a motive to commit this crime. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the accused with Dipali was arranged by deceased. The appellant noticed that the Dipali was mentally imbalanced. 11. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant had a motive to commit this crime. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the accused with Dipali was arranged by deceased. The appellant noticed that the Dipali was mentally imbalanced. The appellant had grudge against the deceased that he acted as a mediator in his marriage and arraigned it knowing that the Dipali was not mentally sound. It has come on record that the appellant used to tell the deceased that he should take initiative to give divorce to him from Dipali otherwise he would play game with him. This is the motive for commission of a crime. 12. It would be necessary to appreciate the evidence of the eye witnesses. PW-1 and 3 have provided the first hand account of the incident. Their presence on the spot on the given date and time has not been seriously disputed. Even otherwise their evidence coupled with other circumstances proves beyond doubt that they were present on the spot on the given date and time. 13. The appellant and the deceased are relatives. The mother of the appellant is the sister of the wife of deceased. PW-1 and 3 have deposed that they were doing work at Ulhas Nagar. The appellant was also doing work at Ulhas Nagar. They all had come to their native place for Diwali. On 01.11.2016, they had gone to house of Samadhan Bhakre at Sagwan for Diwali. Samdhan Bhakre was their maternal uncle. The appellant had also come there. Samadhan Bhakre is also the maternal uncle of the appellant. They have further deposed that on 04.11.2016 at about 5:00 p.m. they alongwith Komal-daughter of the another maternal uncle, Vijay and Umesh – son of maternal uncle Samadhan Bhakre were chitchatting with each other. They heard some noise of quarrel. They came out of the house. They saw that the appellant was giving blows by knife on neck of their father. They cried for help. The appellant fled from the spot. They have deposed that their father died on the spot. On the occurrence of the incidence the version of PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent. Despite searching cross examination no dent has been caused to this version. They witnessed the incident. They saw the appellant inflicting the blows with knife. They have identified the knife in the Court. They have deposed that their father died on the spot. On the occurrence of the incidence the version of PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent. Despite searching cross examination no dent has been caused to this version. They witnessed the incident. They saw the appellant inflicting the blows with knife. They have identified the knife in the Court. PW-1 lodged report of the incident immediately. The report is at Exh. 22. The incident was narrated in detail in the report. On the basis of the report a crime bearing No. 435 of 2016 was registered. During the course of cross examination, it was suggested to PW-1 and 3 that the appellant was also doing work with them and therefore, they had apprehension that he would be the main competitor and rival in the business and therefore, he was falsely implicated. In our view, in the totality of the facts and first hand account of the incident narrated by the PW-1 and 3 this suggestion does not hold any water. On minute scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1 and 3 we are convinced that they were present on the spot and they witnessed the incident. The vivid account of the incident placed on record by them consistently would not have been possible if they had been the got up witnesses. 14. A submission is made that their evidence losses credibility inasmuch as they are interested witnesses being sons of the deceased. While appreciating this submission it is necessary to bare in mind that simply because of interestedness the evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded. In this case the question is whether they were present on the spot or not. No material has been elicited in their cross examination to remotely suggest that they were not present on the spot. Their conduct clearly support their presence on the spot. PW-1 immediately reported the incident to the Police. In the facts and circumstances, on all counts, submissions advanced by the learned Advocate to discard the evidence of PW-1 and 3 cannot be accepted. 15. It would be necessary to consider the corroborative evidence relied upon by the prosecution. In this case the weapon of the offence i.e. knife was discovered at the instance of the appellant during the course of investigation. The memorandum and discovery panchanama is at Exh. 29. 15. It would be necessary to consider the corroborative evidence relied upon by the prosecution. In this case the weapon of the offence i.e. knife was discovered at the instance of the appellant during the course of investigation. The memorandum and discovery panchanama is at Exh. 29. Shivaji Krushnarao Deshmukh (PW-4) is the panch witness to the memorandum and discovery panchanama. PW-4 has deposed that he is serving as Talathi at Buldhana – Part II office. He was called to act as a panch witness. He has deposed that the accused made a statement in his presence as well as in the presence of other panch witness that he would show the knife and the place, where it was hidden. The knife was kept by the accused, as can be seen from his evidence, in the dicky of the motor cycle which was parked in the premises of “Aai Hospital”. He has deposed that accused took them to the motor cycle. He took the key from the compounder. The key was handed over to the compounder by the accused when he parked motor cycle in front of the hospital immediately after the incident. He has stated that the appellant took out the knife from beneath the seat of the motor cycle. The knife was recovered. He has identified the knife. The knife was stained with blood. Exh. 29 is the Memorandum and discovery panchanama. The description of the knife has been recorded in the discovery panchanama. It is mentioned in the panchanama that the blade of the knife was sharp. The investigating officer has deposed on this point. He has stated that during the course of investigation the appellant expressed willingness to make a statement. He, therefore, called the panch witnesses. In presence of the panch witnesses the appellant made a statement that he would point out the place where he had hidden the knife and the statement of the accused led to the discovery of the knife. It is pertinent to mention that the nature of the weapon used in the crime was known to the investigating officer as well as to the eye witnesses, but, the place where the weapon was concealed was not known to them. 16. The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2016 at about 10:28 p.m. His clothes were seized. The clothes were stained with blood. 16. The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2016 at about 10:28 p.m. His clothes were seized. The clothes were stained with blood. However, at that time, he was not carrying the said knife. So till his arrest he had an opportunity to conceal the weapon. There is one more important documentary evidence to lead credence to this evidence of discovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant. The Government vehicle was used for the said purpose on 06.11.2016 by PW-7. He has produced on record the letter written by him to Police Inspector, Motor Transport Division of the Police Headquarter for obtaining the log book of the vehicle. However, the witness is silent about the procurement of the log book etc. Be that as it may, the witness has displayed due diligence to collect the necessary record. If this vehicle had not been used he would not have made such endevour and placed such document on record. The evidence of recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant is a important piece of evidence. It corroborates the case of the prosecution and the evidence of the eye witnesses. PW-1 and 3 have identified the knife before the Court. 17. The clothes of the deceased, clothes of the appellant and other articles seized from the spot were sent to CA. The CA reports have been admitted in evidence. Perusal of the CA report at Exh. 47, which pertains to the analysis of the blood on the clothes of the appellant, proves that the blood of group ‘B’ was found on the clothes of the appellant. Similarly, the CA opined that the blood group of the appellant is ‘B’. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had not sustained bleeding injury. He had sustained linear abrasion. Therefore, the presence of the blood of ‘B’ group on his clothes is very important circumstance. The blood detected on his clothes is reported to be human blood. Exh. 48 is the CA report of the analysis of the blood of the deceased and the blood found on his clothes. The blood on his clothes was of group ‘B’. Similarly, the CA opined that it was a human blood. The possibility of falling of the blood of the appellant on the clothes of the deceased has been completely ruled out inasmuch as the appellant had not sustained any bleeding injury. The blood on his clothes was of group ‘B’. Similarly, the CA opined that it was a human blood. The possibility of falling of the blood of the appellant on the clothes of the deceased has been completely ruled out inasmuch as the appellant had not sustained any bleeding injury. It is pertinent to note, at this stage, that the blood group of the deceased could not be determined as the result was inconclusive due to the fact that the blood was hemolyzed. In the facts and circumstances, perusal of CA report pertaining to the appellant and the deceased would clearly indicate that on the clothes of the appellant as well as on the clothes of the deceased, the blood detected was of the deceased. No other conclusion or inference is possible in view of proved facts and circumstances. 18. This evidence has been challenged on the ground that this evidence was not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to enable him to explain it. The learned Advocate submitted that in the absence of such exercise having been undertaken the CA reports at Exh. 47 and 48 cannot be used against the appellant. In order to satisfy ourselves we have perused his statement and particularly perused question No. 76. It is seen that the contents of the forwarding letter by the investigating officer to the CA with the description of the samples was put to the witness. It was put to him that the CA reports were collected in due course. The learned Sessions Judge was under an obligation to specifically put the contents of the CA reports to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The CA reports proved in this case are otherwise admissible, however, due to this mistake on the part of the learned Sessions Judge, the same would be required to be eschewed from consideration. In this case since the contents and opinion in the CA reports was not specifically put to the appellant in his examination, we have no hesitation in accepting the submissions advanced, touching this point, by the learned Advocate for the appellant. In this case since the contents and opinion in the CA reports was not specifically put to the appellant in his examination, we have no hesitation in accepting the submissions advanced, touching this point, by the learned Advocate for the appellant. It was incumbent on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to specifically put the relevant contents and the opinion of the CA to the appellant so as to enable him to explain this incriminating evidence against him. In our view, therefore, this evidence which has otherwise been proved, cannot be made the basis of the conviction. 19. Be that as it may, the evidence of the eye witnesses and other circumstantial evidence which fully corroborate the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded. On the basis of the evidence, the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant. In view of this findings it would be necessary to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate that in this case there is a single blow with the knife and therefore, the offence of a culpable homicide not amounting to murder would get attracted. It is pertinent to note that merely because of the single blow the offence of a culpable homicide amounting to murder would not become a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court has to see the nature of the weapon used in the crime and the vital part of the body where the blow was struck. The Court is required to ascertain the intention of the accused on the basis of the facts and evidence. If the prosecution proves that intention of the appellant was to cause death, then even in case of single blow, the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder would get attracted. On this point, we may usefully refer to the decisions in the case of Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar .v/s. State of Gujrat, (2011) 10 SCC 604 and State of Rajasthan through the Secretary .v/s. Kanhaiya Lal, (2019) 5 SCC 639 . In our view, the law laid down in these decisions would squarely apply to this case. In the case of Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar .v/s. State of Gujarat that the inference of the intention of accused has to be gathered on the basis of injury on vital part of body and the force used. In our view, the law laid down in these decisions would squarely apply to this case. In the case of Ashokkumar Magabhai Vankar .v/s. State of Gujarat that the inference of the intention of accused has to be gathered on the basis of injury on vital part of body and the force used. If the intention is to cause death then, the death caused by a single blow on a vital part would constitute the offence of murder. This decision was considered in the case of State of Rajasthan through the Secretary .v/s. Kanhaiya Lal. In the case of State of Rajasthan through the Secretary .v/s. Kanhaiya Lal it is held that there cannot be a fixed rule that whenever a single blow is inflicted, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. The nature of weapon used in the crime and the vital part of the body, where the blow was struck, would be sufficient to prove that the intention of the accused was to cause the death of deceased. 20. It is seen that the accused and the deceased had gathered at the residence of the brother-in-law of the deceased. The brother-in-law of the deceased is also the maternal uncle of the appellant. They had gathered there to celebrate Bhaubij. The appellant had grudge against the deceased. The evidence indicate that he was insisting the deceased to mediate for divorce between him and his wife. On the date of the incident he came prepared. He carried the knife. He brutally assaulted the deceased. He cut his throat. In our view, the weapon used by appellant and the nature of injury caused/inflicted on the neck would reflect on the intention of the appellant. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, considering the weapon used and the injury caused on the vital part of the body by cutting the throat we conclude that his intention was to kill the deceased. Therefore, in this case the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate on this point cannot be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge, in our view, was right in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order. The appeal, therefore, fails. Hence, the following order. ORDER The appeal is dismissed.