JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-original accused no. 2 under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 168 of 2013, wherein, the appellant alongwith accused no. 1 came to be tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 294(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (‘G.P. Act’ in short). 2. At the end of the trial, the appellant came to be convicted under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 114 of the IPC and was sentenced as under: Sections of IPC Punishment Fine In default 302 Life imprisonment Rs. 20,000/ - SI for two months 323 SI for six months -- -- 3. The facts leading to file the present appeal are as under: 3.1 On 13.10.2011 at about 11-30 PM, deceased Dipak Meghjibhai was fatally killed by the accused Satishsinh Solanki and present appellant accused Kamalsinh Naruka. The motive behind the murder was the relation of the deceased with the sister of the accused Satish Solanki. Both the accused are related to each other. 3.2 On the day of incident, deceased was sleeping on the terrace of his house situated at Amraiwadi Area, Ahmedabad, whereas, PW-10 mother was on cot at the varanda of the house. The accused came at about 11-30 PM, under the pretext that they want to inform the deceased about bankers cheque. The PW-10 called the deceased by shouting his name. The accused no. 1 - Satish Solanki while scaling on the compound wall, called the deceased by hurling abusive. The deceased came down from the terrace. The accused complained of about phone called made by deceased to their sister. The deceased explained that he never called her but she in turn called him. The accused thereafter, gave feast and kick blows to the deceased, which has resulted into scuffle between the parties. The accused no. 2-present appellant was having a big knife and during this scuffle the knife was given by him to accused no. 1, as a result of which, the accused no. 1 stabbed the deceased multiple times at the vital parts of the body. The deceased instantaneously collapsed. The accused no. 2-present appellant was having a big knife and during this scuffle the knife was given by him to accused no. 1, as a result of which, the accused no. 1 stabbed the deceased multiple times at the vital parts of the body. The deceased instantaneously collapsed. The PW-10, tried to restrain the deceased by throwing wooden log alleged used for washing cloth. After the incident, leaving the knife at the spot, the accused on account of hue and cry and gathering of the neighbor ran away. 3.3 The emergency ambulance 108 called by someone. The private hospital, where the deceased was brought declared him ‘dead’. 3.4 PW-16, PI-M.D. Upadhyay was on night duty with Amraiwadi Police Station, went to the scene of offence, as he was informed by the PSO. He recorded the complaint of the PW-10 Sarlaben Meghjibhai. After registration of the offense, Mr. Upadhyay proceeded to investigate the case. In the presence of panchas, while preparing the spot panchnama, the knife, alleged used in the murder was seized and recovered. The accused were apprehended. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. The blood stain cloths of the accused as well as deceased were seized. After recording the statement of eye-witnesses, the IO found sufficient evidence for the charge of murder and accordingly, he filed a chargesheet against both the accused for the offences as recorded above. The Magistrate before whom the chargesheet was filed committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Ahmedabad, which had been culminated into Sessions Case No. 168 of 2013. 4. On the basis of material on record, the charges were framed against the appellant at Exh.5, to which he pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the trial Court, accordingly. 5. In order to prove the case against the appellant, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents to prove its case as per the following table: Oral Evidence PW-1 - Exh.9 Jitendrasinh Vijaysinh Gohil, panch witness PW-2 - Exh.11 Pravinbhai Dashrathbhai Vanikar, panch witness PW-3 - Exh.12 Ajay Chhedilal Jaiswal, panch witness PW-4 - Exh.17 Mukesh Ghanshyambhai Shahu, panch witness PW-5 - Exh.22 Dharmendra Dashrathlal Raval, panch witness PW-6 - Exh.23 Amol Laxmanbhai Sonwane, panch witness PW-7 - Exh.29 Pravinbhai Madhubhai Patel, panch witness PW-8 - Exh.30 Baldevbhai Karshanbhai Hadhiyal, panch witness PW-9 - Exh.31 Dr. Manish Bachubhai Ghelani, medical officer PW-10 - Exh.33 Sarlaben Meghjibhai Hala, complainant - eyewitness PW-11 - Exh.38 Hemlataben Virendrabhai Verma PW-12 - Exh.39 Vivek Virendrabhai Verma PW-13 - Exh.40 Chetanbhai Naranbhai Koshti PW-14 - Exh.41 Mamtaben Chetanbhai Koshti PW-15 - Exh.43 Jyotiben Ratanbhai Koshti PW-16 - Exh.44 Mukeshbhai Dilipbhai Upadhyay, investigating officer Documentary Evidence Exh.10 Inquest Panchanama Exh.13 Panchanama of recovery of clothes and taking blood sample from dead body Exh.18 Panchanama of crime scene Exh.24 Panchanama of examination of accused and seizure of clothes Exh.32 Post-mortem note Exh.34 Complaint Exh.45 Report under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. Exh.46 Report to FSL officer to arrive at crime scene and opinion Exh.47 FSL forwarding note Exh.48 FSL receipt Exh.49 FSL forwarding letter Exh.50 Geological report Exh.51 FSL receipt Exh.52 FSL report Exh.53 Serological report 6. The accused upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating circumstances made against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied it and not lead any evidence in defence. 7. The trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as stated in the earlier part of this judgment. The learned trial Court mainly relied on the testimony of PW-10 and came to conclusion that with pre-arranged plan, the accused have had common intention to kill the deceased and by their active participation in the offence, there was an intention to kill the deceased and therefore with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the accused held guilty for the murder. 8. Oral as well as documentary evidence: 8.1 In order to prove charges, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. Out of 16 witnesses, 6 witnesses were the witness of incident. The material witness, who has supported the prosecution case is the mother of the deceased (PW-10). The other witnesses who were neighbours have not supported the case of the prosecution. Out of 16 witnesses, 6 witnesses were the witness of incident. The material witness, who has supported the prosecution case is the mother of the deceased (PW-10). The other witnesses who were neighbours have not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.2 PW-10 Sarlaben Meghjibhai has stated in her deposition that, on 13.10.2011, at about 11-30 P.M. when his son deceased Dipak was sleeping at the terrace, the accused under the pretext of informing bankers cheques came at the house; she had called the deceased to come down from the terrace; the accused Satish Solanki called the deceased and hurled the abusive; and after hearing the shouting the deceased came down from the terrace; she has categorically stated that, the accused Satish made a complaint about phone call made by the deceased to his sister, for which the deceased replied that, he did not call her but she called him and on that issue, the accused beat him by feast and kick blows. There was heated exchange of words and during this scuffle the present appellant accused was armed with the dangerous knife. He took out it and gave it to the accused no. 1, who is brother in law of him. The accused no. 1, stabbed the deceased for multiple times on vital part of the body, which led to instantaneous death of the deceased. The mother PW-10 tried to save his son by throwing a wooden lob (used for the purpose of washing cloth), however, she could not restrain the accused. She has further stated that, the persons of the vicinity assembled there and due to hue and cry, the accused leaving the knife at the place, ran away. She has further stated that her son was taken to nearby hospital in an ambulance but he brought declared ‘dead’ by the doctor. She identified her thumb impression on the complaint, which she has disclosed before the police, who came later on. She also identified the weapon-knife in the court as well as blood stain cloths of the deceased. She also identified the accused as they are resident of the same area, where the incident arose. 8.3 The testimony of PW-10 was tested by lengthy cross-examination but her version so far main incident is concerned, do not shaken in cross-examination. She also identified the weapon-knife in the court as well as blood stain cloths of the deceased. She also identified the accused as they are resident of the same area, where the incident arose. 8.3 The testimony of PW-10 was tested by lengthy cross-examination but her version so far main incident is concerned, do not shaken in cross-examination. In the cross-examination, the questions were being asked about the issue of scuffle allegedly took place between the deceased as well as accused but nothing being brought on record to discredit the version of the incident stated by her. The defense tried to establish that at relevant time, there is less visibility and due to darkness she could not in a position to identify the accused but she stood firm so far as fatal blows given by the accused no. 1 with the arm allegedly provided by the present appellant accused. 8.4 Prosecution had examined as many as 5 witnesses, who were neighbours and claimed to be eye-witness of the incident. However, they did not support the case of the prosecution and even after declaring them hostile, they denied that they were present and seen the incident. The witnesses who have been declared hostile were Hemlataben Verma (PW-11), Vivek Verma (PW-12), Chetan Kosti (PW-13), Mamtaben Kosti (PW-14) and Jyotiben Kosti (PW-14). 8.5 So far medical evidence is concerned, the prosecution examined PW-9 Manish Ghelani, who had performed PM of the deceased. He noted and found the following external injuries mentioned in column no. 17 in PM note (Exh.32): (1) 4 x 1.5 cm x left thoracic cavity deep oblique (Downward laterally) stab wound at posterior of left lower chest which is 6 cm left to mid-line and 10 cm interomedial to interior angle of left scapula. Superomedial angle is acute and interlacteral angle broad. Margins of stab wound red, clean cut and inverted. (2) Transverse 1.5 x 0.2 x 0.2 cm incised wound at right maxilla 1.5 cm below outer contusion of right eye. (3) 1 x 0.3 cm transverse abrasion right forehead 0.5 cm above mid eyebrow. (4) 1.5 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion left forehead 6.5 cm above left end of left eyebrow. (5) 1.5 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion rt. Forehead 6 cm above rt mid eyebrow. (6) 3 x 0.3 cm verticle abrasion mid forehead 3 cm above glabella. (3) 1 x 0.3 cm transverse abrasion right forehead 0.5 cm above mid eyebrow. (4) 1.5 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion left forehead 6.5 cm above left end of left eyebrow. (5) 1.5 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion rt. Forehead 6 cm above rt mid eyebrow. (6) 3 x 0.3 cm verticle abrasion mid forehead 3 cm above glabella. (7) 1.5 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion superior of left shoulder. (8) 2.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm transverse inclosed wound on postero medical of it upper forearm 10 cm below elbow. (9) Abrasion 2 x 0.5 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm & 0.5 x 0.3 cm post of Rt elbow. (10) 2 x 0.5 cm verticle abrasion lateral of right upper arm. (11) 3 x 0.2 cm & 3 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasions posterior of Rt. Midforearm. (12) 0.5, 0.5, 0.2 cm Linear abrasions post medical of left wrist. (13) 0.3 x 0.3 cm abrasion dorsal of right hand near thumb. (14) 3 x 1.5 cm transverse abrasion ant-medical of Rt. Forearm near elbow. (15) 3 x 2 cm abrasion post of right upper forearm. (16) Multiple abrasion anterior varies from 0.5 x 0.2 cm to 3 x 1 cm 1/2 Rt forearm size varies from 05x 0.2 cm to 3x1 cm. (17) 1 x 0.5 cm transverse abrasion anterior of right knee (18) 1 x 0.5 cm red contusion right midclavicular region. (19) 1 cm verticle abrasion back of right lower abdomen. Dr. Ghelani found the following internal injuries, corresponding to the external injuries. “Under skin contusion (red) 2 x 2 cm right mid clavicular area. Rest Colum. No. 17 injury No. 1 goes deeply in left thoracic cavity in anterior, upward and lateral direction in the way it cut skin, muscle, 10th inter-costal space (3.5 x 0.8 cm) pleura, lower part of lower lobe of left lung (posterior surface) (2.5 x 0.5 x 4 cm) red blood and blood clots in track of wound course of wound is 6.5 cm. 100 cc red blood in left thoracic cavity All chambers of heart empty.” So far as cause of death is concerned, the witness - Dr. Ghelani opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage on account of sustaining of the chest injuries. 100 cc red blood in left thoracic cavity All chambers of heart empty.” So far as cause of death is concerned, the witness - Dr. Ghelani opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage on account of sustaining of the chest injuries. He further opined that, the injuries sustained were possible with the muddamal knife and injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 8.6 The panch witnesses as referred in Para-4 of this judgment have not supported to the case of the prosecution as they have been declared hostile. 8.7 The material witness PW-16 Mr. M.D. Upadhyay, Investigating Officer, in his deposition has stated that, after receiving the official worthy from the Amraiwadi Police Station, he immediate reached at the spot, where, he write down the complaint disclosed by the PW-10. He has further stated that, in the presence of officials of the Mobile FSL as well as independent panchas, he recovered and seized the weapon knife allegedly found at the place. In his deposition, he has stated that after arrest of the accused, he sent the blood stain cloths with blood samples to the FSL for further examination and after receiving the report and recording the statement of the witnesses, he filed chargesheet against the accused. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, while assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel Mr. Pratik Barot, appearing for the appellant-accused no. 2 Kamalsinh Naruka made the following submissions: (a) That the impugned judgment is against the law and evidence on record and is not maintainable in eye of law. That the entire prosecution case hinges upon the sole eye witness PW-10, who happened to be mother of the deceased. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the PW-10, who is highly interested witness, as she being the mother, was having self interest to convict the appellant-accused. Thus, the sole testimony of PW-10 without independent corroboration to her evidence does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. (b) The evidence of PW-10, on the aspect of weapon as well as story about the injuries caused to the accused is full of contradiction and she made major improvements, which create a doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and therefore, the material contradiction and improvement affect the core of the prosecution case. (b) The evidence of PW-10, on the aspect of weapon as well as story about the injuries caused to the accused is full of contradiction and she made major improvements, which create a doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and therefore, the material contradiction and improvement affect the core of the prosecution case. (c) It is the case of the prosecution that, the appellant accused took out his knife and gave it to the accused no. 1, who in turn stabbed the deceased and according to version of the witness PW-10, the appellant accused caught hold the deceased. On careful reading of the evidence of PW-10, it was submitted that, she nowhere clearly states that the appellant accused continued to hold the deceased till the assault was over and therefore, the ingredients of Section 34 qua the appellant-accused, are not attracted, as prior to the commission of offence, there was no pre-arranged plan and actual participation of the appellant accused in the alleged act of murder and therefore, merely because the appellant accused had caught hold the deceased, he could not be held to have said the common intention to kill the deceased. Thus, the conviction recorded by the court below with the aid of Section 34 qua the appellant accused is not sustainable in law. (d) Lastly, alternatively, it was submitted that, the appellant accused did not have cause any injuries to the deceased and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, there was only one stab injury on the deceased and that too was caused without pre-medication and the attack was in a sudden fight in a heat of passion and therefore, the appellant accused could not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate, in support of the aforesaid submissions has relied on the following judgments: (i) Champaben W/o Hareshbhai Chaturbhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240190 (ii) Raijibhai Merubhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2014 (3) GLR 2071 (iii) Mahendrabhai Babubhai Gadat Vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC-229809 (iv) Shambhu Kuer Vs. State of Bihar, 1982 (1) SCC 486 11. On the other hand, opposing the contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. State of Gujarat, 2019 (0) AIJEL-HC 240190 (ii) Raijibhai Merubhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, 2014 (3) GLR 2071 (iii) Mahendrabhai Babubhai Gadat Vs. State of Gujarat, 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC-229809 (iv) Shambhu Kuer Vs. State of Bihar, 1982 (1) SCC 486 11. On the other hand, opposing the contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B. Dabhi, has supported the findings recorded by the court below and submitted that, the learned trial Court, closely examined the evidence of PW-10, who is mother of the deceased; she was only sole witness, who was present at the house and therefore, she being the natural independent witness, has gave the true account of the incident and her evidence does not suffer from any infirmities and her evidence as a ring of truth, credible cogent and reliable and there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused and let it go the original culprits. The prosecution has examined the independent witnesses, who were neighbours, but somehow, they win over by the other side and did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PW-10 corroborated by the medical evidence, as the injuries found by the PM doctor PW-9, were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. It was further submitted that, the minor contradictions or inconsistency with regard to armed knife found at the place and other aspects cannot be termed as material contradictions, which do not affect the root of the prosecution case and it should not be made a ground on which the evidence which is otherwise reliable and cogent can be rejected in its entirety. So far role attributed to present appellant-accused is concerned, it was submitted that the appellant was armed with knife and at relevant time, if it would not have handed over to the accused no. 1, then, the incident of murder could not have happened. Thus, there was a pre-planned and the accused shared the common intention to kill the deceased and same facts being proved and established by the oral testimony of PW-10. So far as contention relates to alternative plea about the offence not amounting to murder, cannot be accepted as the injuries were on vital part of the body and the manner in which stab wound caused on the body of the deceased, the benefit of exception to Section 300 would not be available to the appellant accused. 12. So far as contention relates to alternative plea about the offence not amounting to murder, cannot be accepted as the injuries were on vital part of the body and the manner in which stab wound caused on the body of the deceased, the benefit of exception to Section 300 would not be available to the appellant accused. 12. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dabhi prays that there is no any perversity in the judgment and the court below has recorded sound and cogent reasons for arriving the conclusion of the guilt of the accused, which do not warrant interference. 13. We have heard at length the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their assistance, examined the material evidence. 14. In the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that, the accused no. 1 and 2 are related to each other and residing in the same vicinity where the deceased was lived. At the time of incident, the deceased was sleeping on the terrace and his mother was at the ground floor (varanda). So far as role attributed the present appellant-accused is concerned, he carried the dangerous weapon knife with him and during the scuffle, he gave it the said knife to accused no. 1, which resulted into death of the deceased. 15. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the evidence of PW-10, as other eye-witnesses, as referred above, have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-10 is the mother of deceased. The first contention relates to the non-reliability to PW-10 as she is interested witness. It is settled position of law that, there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as ‘untruthful witnesses’. A close relatives of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real assailants and to falsely mention the name of another person. In the facts of present case, at the time of incident, except mother – PW-10, nobody was there in the house. Thus, in our opinion, after close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-10, she was the natural and independent witness of the incident. She stood firm in her version despite the searching cross examination of the defense and on material particulars we do not find any major contradictions, inconsistencies or any improvement, as argued by the defense. Thus, in our opinion, after close scrutiny of the evidence of PW-10, she was the natural and independent witness of the incident. She stood firm in her version despite the searching cross examination of the defense and on material particulars we do not find any major contradictions, inconsistencies or any improvement, as argued by the defense. The evidence of PW-10, having a ring of truth, and minor variations in the account of said witness, further strengthen the truthfulness and reliability of her statement. Thus, the evidence of PW-10, does not in any manner termed to be untruthful witness and her testimony on the complicity of the accused as well as the act of murder, allegedly done by the accused, inspires confidence and found cogent, credible and trust worthy and therefore, the contention that the evidence of PW-10 on account of contradictions and inconsistencies in her evidence and she being the mother, should be rejected, is not acceptable and having no substance. 16. The next is the contention that, the appellant accused could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 34. Section 34 says that when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner, as it were done by him alone. Thus, before invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove and establish that, there was existence of common intention amongst the participants and the common intention between the assailants. In other words, it requires a pre-arranged plan, because a man can be vicariously convicted for the act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of the other accused. The question whether in the facts of the present case, there was any common intention shared by the present appellant accused with the another accused or not? In the case on hand, PW-10 has categorically stated that her son was stabbed by accused no. 1 with weapon knife, allegedly took out and given by the present appellant accused. She has also stated that, with intent to kill her son, the appellant accused before the attack, caused physical harm and by holding his neck, caught hold the deceased. In the case on hand, PW-10 has categorically stated that her son was stabbed by accused no. 1 with weapon knife, allegedly took out and given by the present appellant accused. She has also stated that, with intent to kill her son, the appellant accused before the attack, caused physical harm and by holding his neck, caught hold the deceased. Thus, in our opinion, it is proved and established that the appellant accused was armed with the dangerous weapon knife and same was not a kitchen knife but the knife which generally used by professional killer; the accused proceeded from their house with the said knife, which shows that, there was intention on their part to stab the deceased. The medical evidence shows that, the external injury no. 1, mentioned in the column no. 17 of the PM report, was found at the vital part chest. The nature of injury found at the posterior of left lower chest (4 x 1.5 cm x left thoracic cavity deep oblique downward laterally), which is corresponding to the internal injury mentioned in the PM note and as per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course to cause the death and it would be possible with the armed weapon, seized at the place. In the totality of the circumstances, the presence of the appellant accused is proved and established and despite of a dangerous weapon knife carried by him, he did not stop there but gave it to accused no. 1 and caught hold the deceased, which shows his active participation in the offence and therefore, the ingredients of Section 34 qua the appellant accused are attracted because, his presence was established at the scene of offence and he was having knife with him, which he gave it to the accused no. 1 and while holding the deceased, A1 stabbed the deceased on his vital part. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the learned trial Court while invoking Section 34 qua the appellant accused, did not have committed any error of law and has properly read the oral evidence and therefore, the contention relates to non-applicability of Section 34 qua the appellant accused cannot be accepted. 17. On the applicability of Section 34, the defense has heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shambhu Kuer Vs. 17. On the applicability of Section 34, the defense has heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shambhu Kuer Vs. State of Bihar, 1982 (1) SCC 486 . In the facts of the cited case, the accused Shambhu Kuer was held guilty with the aid of Section 34, as he hold the deceased till the assault was completed by the co-accused. The Supreme Court after careful examination of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, held and observed that, the witnesses did not clearly state that the appellant accused continued to hold the deceased till the assault was over. In the facts of the present case, PW-10 has clearly stated that the appellant accused hold the deceased and during the scuffle, the knife which was carried by him, given to the accused no. 1, who stabbed the deceased. Thus, on factual aspect, it can be said that, till the end of assault, the deceased was caught hold by the appellant and therefore, the citation would not rescue to the case of appellant. 18. The third contention relates to the conviction rendered by the Court-below under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the facts of present case, the question whether the offence is murdered punishable under Section 302 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 19. We have noted the facts that the accused no. 1, who stabbed the deceased, has been absconding and till date, he has not surrendered in the jail authority. Whether he has challenged the conviction or not, that has not come on record. The A1 is the brother-in-law of present accused. In these background facts, it was submitted that, there was only one stabbed injury on the deceased and without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, the attack was done by accused no. 1 and therefore, offence did not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved and established that, the blow was given at the vital part of the body and the amount of force employed in causing injury was such that the lungs were cut. The weapon knife is not ordinary knife. 1 and therefore, offence did not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As discussed above, the prosecution has successfully proved and established that, the blow was given at the vital part of the body and the amount of force employed in causing injury was such that the lungs were cut. The weapon knife is not ordinary knife. Nothing comes on record that, before the attack, the deceased in a heated exchange of words, tried to caused injury to the accused. In such circumstances, considering the nature of injury, the manner in which, the weapon was used and in absence of any facts about sudden fight, the vary act of the accused inflicting knife blow itself indicates that they intended to cause that particular injury which were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. As discussed above, the facts does not disclose that the accused has been proved or by loss of temper or self-controlled, the act was committed. These facts clearly constitute the offence of murder as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The defense submission about applicability of exception (iv) to Section 300 do not exist and same cannot be accepted in the present case. 20. In the backdrop findings recorded above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has duly proved that both the accused in furtherance of their common intention have committed the offence of murder of the deceased under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We find no case of interference. Hence, present conviction appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Accordingly, present Criminal Appeal is dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent forthwith to the concerned Court.