JUDGMENT : G. A. SANAP, J. 1. This Appeal challenges the Judgment and order dated 26th September, 2018 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (Shri Surendra R. Sharma) in Sessions Case No. 72/2017, whereby the learned Judge convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of the payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The crime was registered on the report lodged by Manisha Prashant Karwade, the mother of deceased Shashank on 27th March, 2017. The facts unfolded from the report of Manisha Karwade are that there was love affair between Mayuri Dharmendra Tembhurne (since deceased), who was cousin sister of the Appellant and deceased Shashank Karwade. The deceased Shashank had given promise of marriage to the deceased Mayuri, but in the nick of the time he backed out from his promise. The deceased Mayuri, therefore, took extreme decision of committing suicide. After her suicide the deceased Shashank, his mother PW-1 Manisha Prashant Karwade and his father were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted in the said offence. As such, there was an enmity between the Appellant and the deceased Shashank. The Appellant would regularly raise dispute with the deceased Shashank for one reason or the other. 3. On the fateful day i.e. on 27th March, 2017 the informant PW-1 Manisha Karwade and her neighbour PW-2 Sarika Hadke were sitting in the house of the informant and chitchatting. Both of them heard loud cries of Shashank. They went towards the court-yard of the house and saw that the Appellant was inflicting blows on the chest of the deceased Shashank with a sharp edged weapon like knife. The deceased Shashank fell down. Thereafter the Appellant inflicted two-three blows with the said weapon on his back, abdomen and hand. The informant and PW-2 Sarika Hadke raised shouts. The Appellant then fled from the scene. The informant called her brother Ajay. He took the deceased Shashank to Government Hospital on the motorcycle of Pawan Bhasme. In the hospital, on examination, doctor declared him dead. Thereafter the Appellant inflicted two-three blows with the said weapon on his back, abdomen and hand. The informant and PW-2 Sarika Hadke raised shouts. The Appellant then fled from the scene. The informant called her brother Ajay. He took the deceased Shashank to Government Hospital on the motorcycle of Pawan Bhasme. In the hospital, on examination, doctor declared him dead. The informant, therefore, lodged the report to the Police Station, Pulgaon vide Crime No. 430/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. PW-5 Murlidhar Pandurang Burade, Police Inspector attached to the Police Station, Pulgaon conducted the investigation. The dead body was sent for the post-mortem. On arrest of the Appellant his clothes stained with blood were seized. The blood sample of the Appellant as well as the blood sample received from the Medical Officer, and the clothes of the deceased Shashank, and accused were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur. On the disclosure statement made by the Appellant, the knife was recovered. After completion of investigation, PW-5 Murlidhar Burade filed charge-sheet against the Appellant in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pulgaon. 5. Upon committal of a case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha framed the charge vide Exhibit-2 against the Appellant. The Appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence is of total denial and false implication in the crime. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. On analysis and consideration of the evidence, the learned Judge held the Appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved by this Judgment and order, the Appellant is before this Court in Appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, learned APP for the State. We have perused the record and proceedings. 7. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that since the informant, deceased Shashank and the father of the deceased were prosecuted in the case of suicide of Mayuri, there was an enmity between the two families. The learned Advocate by taking shelter of this admitted position, submitted that due to the enmity, the Appellant was falsely implicated in this crime. The learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that since the informant, deceased Shashank and the father of the deceased were prosecuted in the case of suicide of Mayuri, there was an enmity between the two families. The learned Advocate by taking shelter of this admitted position, submitted that due to the enmity, the Appellant was falsely implicated in this crime. The learned Advocate took us through the evidence of PW-1 Manisha Prashant Karwade, PW-2 Sarika Sandip Hadke, the spot panchanama and submitted that from the place where the PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika were sitting, it was not possible for them to witness the incident which allegedly occurred on the road. The learned Advocate submitted that the statements of other neighbourers were recorded, however, those neighbourers, who according to the case of the prosecution were eye-witnesses, have not been examined. No plausible explanation has been placed on record for non-examination of other eye-witnesses. It is further submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the incident occurred at 1.30 p.m., but the report was lodged in the evening at 18.23 hours. In the submission of learned Advocate, considering the peculiar facts there was delay in lodging the First Information Report. 8. The learned Advocate submitted that as per the case of prosecution, deceased Shashank was listening the songs on his mobile phone by using the head-phones. The mobile phone and the headphones ought to have been found on the spot. There is no explanation on this point. The learned Advocate further submitted that the C. A. Reports cannot be used as evidence against the Appellant, in as much as, during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the same were not put to him, so as to enable him to explain the same. The learned Advocate further submitted that in this case blood group of the Appellant could not be determined, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the C. A. Report. The learned Advocate further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the material available and evidence, at the most, could have held the appellant guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the material available and evidence, at the most, could have held the appellant guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Advocate submitted that, if the Court comes to the conclusion that his complicity in the crime is established, then he deserves to be sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304II of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Per contra, Ms. Deshmukh, learned APP supported the Judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses is cogent and reliable. In the submission of learned APP, due to the death of the cousin sister of the Appellant, the Appellant had a grudge against the deceased Shashank. In the submission of learned APP, in this case the motive for commission of this crime has been proved. The learned APP submitted that there is ample oral and documentary evidence to corroborate and lend assurance to the evidence of eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika. The learned APP submitted that considering the nature of the injuries found on the dead body, the intention of Appellant was to kill him, and therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, we have minutely perused the evidence of witnesses. There are two eyewitnesses. At the outset it is necessary to mention that the defence of enmity is double edged weapon. It can cut both ways. As per the prosecution case, since the deceased had declined to marry Mayuri she had committed suicide. It has come on record that before committing suicide there was love affair between Mayuri and the deceased Shashank. After committing suicide by Mayuri, the deceased and his parents were prosecuted. They were acquitted. In the facts and circumstances, it goes without saying that there was grudge in the family of Mayuri against the family of the deceased Shashank. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that due to this incident, murder of the deceased was committed. In our view, considering the evidence on record, the Appellant cannot take advantage of defence of enmity to substantiate his contention of false implication. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that due to this incident, murder of the deceased was committed. In our view, considering the evidence on record, the Appellant cannot take advantage of defence of enmity to substantiate his contention of false implication. On the other hand, in the fact situation, case of the prosecution on the point of motive for commission of the crime by the Appellant gets fortified. PW1 Manisha is the mother of the deceased Shashank. She is an eyewitness to the incident. In this case the Appellant has admitted the spot panchanama. The spot panchanama is at Exhibit-47. The Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation got prepared the sketch of the spot. The spot has been depicted in the spot panchanama. The spot is on the road, on the side of house of the deceased Shashank. 12. A case is sought to be made out that PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika by sitting inside the house could not see the incident of assault by the Appellant on the deceased Shashank. In our view, the evidence of PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika does not permit us to accept this defence of the Appellant. PW-1 Manisha has stated that on th March, 2017 at about 1.30 p.m., she and her friend PW-2 Sarika were chitchatting in her house and her son was strolling in the courtyard, listening the music on his mobile phone by using head-phones. She has deposed that they heard the cries of Shashank, and therefore, they came to the court-yard and saw that the Appellant was assaulting Shashank by knife on his chest, back, abdomen and hand. She has further deposed that Shashank came running to them. The Appellant thereafter inflicted the knife blows on his back. When her brother came to the spot on hearing their shouts, the Appellant fled from the spot. Her son fell down in a pool of blood. She has deposed that her brother and Pawan Bhasme took him to the hospital. She also went to the hospital. On admission, the doctor declared him dead. Thereafter she lodged the report. The report is at Exhibit-30. First Information Report is at Exh.31. 13. Perusal of report at Exhibit-30 would show that there is consistency in the facts stated in the report and in the evidence given by her before the court. She also went to the hospital. On admission, the doctor declared him dead. Thereafter she lodged the report. The report is at Exhibit-30. First Information Report is at Exh.31. 13. Perusal of report at Exhibit-30 would show that there is consistency in the facts stated in the report and in the evidence given by her before the court. She has identified the knife which was used by the Appellant. She has also identified her odhni which was tied by her on the injuries of the deceased Shashank. The odhni was smeared with blood. Perusal of her cross-examination would show that an attempt was made to demolish her statement as an eye-witness to the incident. The questions were asked about the topography of the spot and distance of the spot from her house. On perusal of record, it is seen that the spot is at a distance of 30 feet from her house. Perusal of her cross-examination would further indicate that she was aware of the love affair between deceased Shashank and deceased Mayuri. It was suggested to her that after the death of Mayuri, mental condition of the Appellant was not proper. The suggestions seems to have been put to substantiate the defence of the Appellant that the offence committed was culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The witness has denied the suggestions. 14. Perusal of her evidence in entirety coupled with the report lodged by her would show that she had witnessed the assault by the Appellant on her son. Nothing has been brought on record in her cross-examination to doubt her presence on the spot. The evidence of PW-2 Sarika has further fortified her statement being an eye-witness to the incident. 15. PW-2 Sarika Hadke, a friend of PW-1 Manisha has deposed that she had been to the house of PW-1 Manisha on the call given by the deceased Shashank. She has stated that on the date of incident at about 1.30 p.m. when she and PW-1 Manisha were chitchatting on the staircase of the house of PW-1 Manisha, deceased Shashank was listening songs on his mobile phone by using head phones. He was strolling in front of his house. She has deposed that when they heard the cries of Shashank, she peeped through the gate. She saw that the Appellant was assaulting Shashank by knife on his chest, abdomen and hand. He was strolling in front of his house. She has deposed that when they heard the cries of Shashank, she peeped through the gate. She saw that the Appellant was assaulting Shashank by knife on his chest, abdomen and hand. She has stated that PW-1 Manisha also saw the incident. She has deposed that Shashank fainted and fell down in a pool of blood. She has deposed that she ran behind the Accused to catch him, however, he ran away. She has further deposed that Ajay Kothari and Pawan Bhasme took the deceased to the hospital. In the hospital Shashank was declared dead. 16. PW-2 Sarika has also deposed about love affair between deceased Shashank and deceased Mayuri. She has identified the knife. She was subjected to searching cross-examination with the sole object to create a doubt about her presence on the spot. Perusal of her cross-examination in entirety would show that the cross-examiner could not succeed in doing so. The Statements made by this witness in the cross-examination clearly indicate that this witness has narrated the actual account of the incident in a natural manner. She has stated in cross-examination that she was called by the mother of Shashank as she had some work with her. She has stated that there was scorching heat. This question was asked to PW-1 Manisha as well as PW-2 Sarika to suggest that due to scorching heat the deceased Shashank would not stroll on the road. She has denied all the suggestions put to her on the point of the incident. There are no major inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence of eye-witnesses PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika. 17. PW-2 Sarika could not be said to be a chance witness. She is residing in the same locality. She was running a grocery shop. The first hand account of the incident placed on record by her is not possible by using sheer imagination and tutoring. The evidence of PW-2 Sarika on the material aspects deposed by PW-1 Manisha vis a vis the incident and the use of weapon is consistent. We do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika. It is further pertinent to note that in cross-examination of PW-2 Sarika nothing has been attributed to her to establish that for one reason or the other she was interested to support the case of prosecution. We do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika. It is further pertinent to note that in cross-examination of PW-2 Sarika nothing has been attributed to her to establish that for one reason or the other she was interested to support the case of prosecution. We, therefore, conclude that the submission made by the learned Advocate that by considering the topography of the spot and the house of the Appellant it was not possible for them to witness the incident, deserves rejection. 18. It would be necessary to consider other evidence adduced by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika. PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika have deposed about the weapon used in the crime. They have also deposed about multiple injuries inflicted by the Appellant on vital parts of the body of the deceased. 19. In this context, the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Sandip Prabhakar Aakare needs consideration. On 27th March, 2017 he conducted post-mortem of the dead body of deceased Shashank Karwade. Post-mortem report is at Exhibit-49. In the post-mortem report at Column Nos.17 and 18 he has noted down the injuries found on the dead body. On examination, he found following external injuries on the body of the deceased : (i) Deep sharp wound of size 2cm. x 1.4cm. x 7.5cm on chest 5 cm. Below mid-clavicluar area on 1 cm right to the sternum. (ii) Deep sharp wound of size 1cm.x 1cm. x 1cm. on left side between 9th and 10th ribs. (iii) Deep sharp wound of size 2 cm. x 1cm. x 1.5cm. on back on right side area of 6th and 7th ribs. (iv) Deep sharp wound of size 2.5cm. x 1cm. x 1cm. on left forearm. (v) Abrasion of size 1cm. x 0.5 cm. on left arm on palpation fracture and dislocation of left elbow joint. PW-4 Dr. Aakare has deposed that all the above injuries were antemortem. PW-4 Dr. Aakare conducted internal examination of the dead body. On internal examination he found right lung perforated at the level of upper lobe of size 1.5cm. x 0.5 cm. Margin sharp. He found heart perforated at the level of right atrium of size 1.5cm. x 0.5 cm. Margin sharp. According to PW-4 Dr. PW-4 Dr. Aakare conducted internal examination of the dead body. On internal examination he found right lung perforated at the level of upper lobe of size 1.5cm. x 0.5 cm. Margin sharp. He found heart perforated at the level of right atrium of size 1.5cm. x 0.5 cm. Margin sharp. According to PW-4 Dr. Aakare cause of death was due to heavy bleeding due to injuries to the vital organs, lungs and heart. PW4 Dr. Aakare has deposed that all the injuries could be caused by the knife. 20. In the cross-examination PW-4 Dr. Aakare has admitted that the injury No.5, which is an abrasion, cannot be caused by sharp object like knife. He has further stated that the injury No.5 could be caused due to scuffle on the rough surface like cement road. It is apparent that this line of cross-examination has been adopted to bring the case of the Appellant within the exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. This aspect would be dealt with separately while appreciating the submissions made by learned Advocate for the Appellant on this point. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 27th March, 2017 at 1.30 p.m. The post-mortem was conducted on the very same day. The medical evidence, therefore, corroborates the oral testimony of PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika. 21. Exhibit-50 is the requisition letter issued by the Investigating Officer to the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Pulgaon seeking his opinion on the two questions. The opinion given by the Medical Officer is dated 29th March, 2017. The same has been admitted by the defence. While answering the first question, the Medical Officer opined that the injuries could be caused by the knife. While answering the second question, the Medical Officer has opined that the death could be caused due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The injuries could be caused by the knife. The Medical Officer has opined that the weapon is sharp. It is dangerous to kill and harmful for life. The opinion given by the Medical Officer has been admitted by the Appellant. It, therefore, goes without saying that the multiple injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased, and that too, on the vital parts of the body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. It is dangerous to kill and harmful for life. The opinion given by the Medical Officer has been admitted by the Appellant. It, therefore, goes without saying that the multiple injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased, and that too, on the vital parts of the body were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The oral evidence of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika and the evidence of Medical Officer PW-4 Dr. Aakare corroborate each other. In this case defence has admitted the inquest panchanama. The inquest panchanama corroborates the contents of the post-mortem report on the point of injuries inflicted on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. In our opinion, this is an important piece of evidence to corroborate the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution. 22. There is other corroborative piece of evidence in the form of discovery of weapon of the offence namely knife, at the instance of the Appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of interrogation, the Appellant expressed desire to show the place where the knife was hidden. Investigating Officer, therefore, secured the presence of two witnesses from the office of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Pulgaon. The requisition letter is at Exhibit-42. The summons to the witnesses is at Exhibit-43. 23. PW-3 Nikhil Dharmraj Bobde is the panch witness to the memorandum statement and discovery of the weapon. PW-5 Murlidhar Pandurang Burade is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that in presence of panch witnesses the Appellant made a disclosure that he would point out the place where the knife was hidden. PW-3 Nikhil Bobde has deposed that after going to the police station they saw the Appellant in the police station. PW-5 Murlidhar Burade brought the Appellant out of the lock-up. In their presence the Appellant made a statement to produce the knife. The memorandum panchanama (Exhibit-44) was drawn. He has identified his signature as well as the signature of another panch witness. The Appellant took them to his house. They followed the Appellant. Grand-mother of the Appellant was present in the house. Appellant took out a knife from his house concealed between the Tin and Cement roof of his house. PW-3 Nikhil Bobde has provided the description of the knife in his evidence. The discovery panchanama is at Exhibit-45. The Appellant took them to his house. They followed the Appellant. Grand-mother of the Appellant was present in the house. Appellant took out a knife from his house concealed between the Tin and Cement roof of his house. PW-3 Nikhil Bobde has provided the description of the knife in his evidence. The discovery panchanama is at Exhibit-45. In order to show the visit to the house of the Appellant, the Investigating Officer obtained the electricity bill of the meter installed in the house of the Appellant. It is at Exhibit 46. PW-3 Nikhil Bobde has identified the knife (Art.A-1). The evidence of PW-3 Nikhil Bobde is of a great significance and importance to the case of prosecution. Considering the importance of his evidence, he was subjected to searching cross-examination. 24. It is pertinent to mention that PW-3 Nikhil Bobde is the Government servant, therefore, it cannot be said that he is a habitual panch of the police. His presence was specifically secured by the Investigating Officer for this purpose. In his cross-examination by putting number of tricky questions, an attempt was made to create a doubt about his veracity. However, in his cross-examination, the cross-examiner could not deviate this witness from his version on the point of statement made by the Appellant and discovery of the knife in question. In order to demonstrate the flaws in this evidence, it is pointed out that on the memorandum and discovery panchanama the Property No. 62/2017 dated 29th March, 2017 was written. On the basis of this, it is submitted that this memorandum panchanama and discovery panchanama were already prepared and the panch witnesses were made to sign on the already prepared panchanama. Perusal of the memorandum panchanama and discovery panchanama would show that the property number is written on it. 25. It is pertinent to mention that discovered and seized property is deposited in the Malkhana of the police station. The entry of the same is made in the Malkhana register with entry number. In this connection, it would be necessary to see the relevant part of the cross-examination of PW-5 Murlidhar Burade, Investigating Officer. He has admitted that the property number is given to the muddemal property after its seizure. He has admitted that muddemal number is written in the memorandum panchanama. In this connection, it would be necessary to see the relevant part of the cross-examination of PW-5 Murlidhar Burade, Investigating Officer. He has admitted that the property number is given to the muddemal property after its seizure. He has admitted that muddemal number is written in the memorandum panchanama. It is not suggested to him that he wrote the said number on the panchanama or the scribe of the panchanama wrote it. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that as and when the seized muddemal is deposited in the muddemal room after making the entry in the muddemal register, the property number is generally written on the document under which the same is seized. Therefore, in our opinion, much weightage cannot be given to this aspect. The evidence of PW-3 Nikhil Bobde and PW-5 Murlidhar Burade on this aspect is otherwise worth credible. As can be seen from record, the Appellant led the police and panchas to the place where the knife was concealed and produced the same. The knife was stained with blood. The knife was forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. A case is sought to be made out that the knife shown to have been seized in this case was actually belonging to deceased Shashank and the same was found on the spot itself. In our view, in the teeth of the aforesaid evidence, this contention of the Appellant cannot be accepted. In our view, this evidence of discovery and seizure of the weapon of the offence, at the instance of the Appellant, corroborates the case of prosecution in general and evidence of PW-1 Manisha and PW-2 Sarika, the eye-witnesses in particular. 26. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant in trial court has admitted the panchanama of seizure of blood, hair and nail samples of the deceased. It is at Exhibit-34. He has further admitted the panchanama of seizure of blood stained clothes of deceased Shashank. It is at Exhibit-35. He has also admitted panchanama of the seizure of blood stained clothes of the Appellant. It is at Exhibit-36. The admitted panchanama of the seizure of blood sample and hair of the Appellant is at Exhibit-37. The admitted requisition letter issued to the Chemical Analyser by the Investigating Officer forwarded with muddemal is at Exhibit-38. The invoice challan is at Exhibit-39. It is at Exhibit-36. The admitted panchanama of the seizure of blood sample and hair of the Appellant is at Exhibit-37. The admitted requisition letter issued to the Chemical Analyser by the Investigating Officer forwarded with muddemal is at Exhibit-38. The invoice challan is at Exhibit-39. The verification of the weapon and opinion of the Medical Officer about knife, admitted by the defence Advocate is at Exhibit-50. In our view, this evidence corroborates the case of prosecution. The evidence discussed above is sufficient to establish the complicity of the Appellant beyond doubt in the commission of crime. As discussed above, we do not see any reason to discard and disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses and other corroborative evidence. 27. The learned Advocate for the Appellant made a submission that the learned Judge did not ask single question to the Appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to enable him to explain the said evidence. The learned Advocate submitted that the learned Judge without undertaking this exercise, has relied upon the C. A. Reports being corroborative piece of evidence against the Appellant for awarding conviction. In the submission of learned Advocate, this evidence could not have been made the basis of conviction of the Appellant. The learned Advocate submitted that it has caused grave prejudice to the Appellant. 28. In order to satisfy ourselves about correct factual position, we have minutely perused the record and proceedings. In paragraph No.17 of the Judgment learned Judge has considered the C. A. Reports. The learned Judge made use of the C. A. Reports as a corroborative piece of evidence. It is true that on analysis of samples Chemical Analyser opined that the blood group of deceased Shashank was ‘A’. The Chemical Analyser has further opined that the blood of group ‘A’ was found on the clothes of the Appellant. In our view, this is important piece of evidence. 29. Perusal of record would show that during course of trial, the C. A. Reports were not exhibited. The record would show that neither the prosecution has made any request to admit the C. A. Reports in evidence by invoking the provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor the learned Judge on his own undertook the said exercise. The record would show that neither the prosecution has made any request to admit the C. A. Reports in evidence by invoking the provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor the learned Judge on his own undertook the said exercise. As can be seen, the learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the evidence in the form of C. A. Report would be the important piece of corroborative evidence. 30. We have perused the examination of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Perusal of the same would show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not bother to frame any question on the C. A. Reports and put the same to the Appellant so as to enable him to explain this important incriminating piece of evidence. The learned Judge without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to explain this evidence, which obviously was an incriminating evidence against the Appellant made use of the said evidence as a corroborative piece of evidence to convict the accused. In our view, this is not according to law. The legal position on this point has been settled way back in 1984 in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda V/s State of Maharashtra, 1984(4) SCC 116 , wherein it is held that the circumstances, in respect of which accused is not examined or not put to the accused as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be used against the accused. 31. As far as the prejudice to the Appellant is concerned, we are of the opinion that the failure to undertake this exercise qua the C. A. Report would not prejudice the Appellant. At the most on the basis of the lapses, the C. A. Report would be required to be eschewed from consideration. Even if the C. A. Report is eschewed from consideration, the same would not cause any dent to the other cogent and concrete evidence discussed above. The C. A. Report, in no case, could be said to be the foundation of the case of prosecution and other evidence discussed above. Even if the C. A. Report is eschewed from consideration, the same would not cause any dent to the other cogent and concrete evidence discussed above. The C. A. Report, in no case, could be said to be the foundation of the case of prosecution and other evidence discussed above. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yuvraj Ambar Mohite V/s State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 512 has held that failure to draw accused’s attention to inculpatory material and particularly the contents of the forensic report does not vitiate the Judgment of the conviction and sentence, if the accused is not prejudiced thereby. In our view, in this case failure to draw the attention to the C. A. Report would not cause any prejudice to the case of the Appellant, in as much as, the said evidence has been eschewed from consideration. In this case, even if this evidence is kept aside and eschewed from consideration, the same would not dent the other evidence and the case of prosecution. 32. In the context of above, in order to avoid such mistakes in future, it is necessary to bring this to the notice of the Judges who are conducting the criminal trials. The object of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It is the settled legal position that without giving an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances and the evidence, same cannot be used and made basis of conviction of the accused. In the matter of recording of examination of the accused great care is warranted. The entire incriminating evidence is required to be put to the accused to offer him an opportunity to explain the same. In this case, the C. A. Report was not put to the Appellant in his examination. It is to be noted that such lapses have been noticed in number of cases. The Judges who are conducting the criminal trial, are therefore, required to be cautious and careful. The Judges cannot afford to be careless on this count. 33. It is pertinent to note that the exercise of preparing the questions and putting the same to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be a mechanical exercise. The Judges who are conducting the criminal trial, are therefore, required to be cautious and careful. The Judges cannot afford to be careless on this count. 33. It is pertinent to note that the exercise of preparing the questions and putting the same to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be a mechanical exercise. In order to ensure the involvement of other stakeholders namely, the Prosecutor and the Advocate for the accused in the process of preparing the questions to be put to the accused, sub-section (5) has been introduced in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 31st December, 2009, which reads as follows. “Section 313(5)–The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.” The object behind inserting this sub-section is to take the help of Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel and thereby ensure the fair trial to the accused and prosecution. It is observed that the use of this provision has not been made by the trial court Judges. 34. We suggest that the trial court Judges should make use of this provision and make note of the same in the record. If the Prosecutor and the defence Counsel are involved in the process, and if some loophole or lacuna occurs, then in that event the submission made to take the advantage would definitely become comparitively insignificant. We are, therefore, satisfied that by making use of this provision the possible loopholes, drawbacks and ultimately the injustice can be ruled out. 35. It is also observed that proper care is not taken while recording the omissions and contradictions. At times the omissions and contradictions are not properly proved. Without the proof of the omissions and contradictions, the same are be used as a substantive piece of evidence. In this connection, the Inspection Branch of the Registry would be required to take necessary care. We, therefore, suggest that the copy of the Judgment be circulated for perusal and compliance. 36. The learned Advocate submitted that in this case explanation (4) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code would get attracted. In this connection, the Inspection Branch of the Registry would be required to take necessary care. We, therefore, suggest that the copy of the Judgment be circulated for perusal and compliance. 36. The learned Advocate submitted that in this case explanation (4) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code would get attracted. In the submission of learned Advocate, material on record is sufficient to establish that the deceased sustained contusion over his body. The learned Advocate, on the basis of this injury, submitted that there was scuffle between the Appellant and the deceased. The learned Advocate relying upon this material submitted that the act done by the Appellant in sudden fight, in the hit of passion upon sudden quarrel would constitute offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We are not prepared to accept this submission. There is ample oral evidence to establish the motive for commission of offence by the Appellant. The Appellant came on the scene with weapon and made preparation to kill the deceased. The intention of the Appellant can be gathered from the serious injuries inflicted on vital parts of the body of deceased. There is no iota of evidence to suggest that there was sudden fight in the hit of passion and which led to the murder of the deceased. The intention of the accused to kill the deceased is writ large. 37. In our view, therefore, the evidence of the eye-witnesses and other corroborative evidence is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. We, therefore, conclude that there is no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Judgment and order dated 26th September, 2018 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Case No.72/2017 is hereby confirmed.