JUDGMENT : K.S.MUDAGAL, J. Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him, accused in S.C.No.183/2016 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for POCSO), Kolar has preferred this appeal. 2. Appellant was sole accused in S.C.No.183/2016 before the trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Accused was tried in S.C.No.183/2016 for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Vemagal Police in Crime No.265/2016 of their police station. Crime No.265/2016 was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint/Ex.P1 filed by PW.1/C.N.Gopal. 4. Charge against the accused was that victim Krishnappa was running ration shop in Chaldiganahalli village. Accused without required ration card was insisting the victim to supply him the ration which was declined by the victim. Due to such ill-will, on 10.09.2016 at 8.30 p.m. when the victim was proceeding near racchekatte in Chaldiganahalli village, Kolar Taluk, accused armed with knife/MO.1 accosted and stabbed him on his chest, stomach and waist. Victim succumbed to the injuries when he was being shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. 5. The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. As accused denied charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 21 were examined, Exs.P1 to P24 and MOs.1 to 10 were marked. Accused after his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., did not adduce any defence evidence. However, during the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses, Ex.D1 xerox copy of a ration card was marked by way of confrontation. 6. The trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order held that the charge against the accused was proved by the evidence of eyewitnesses, their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence. Hence, trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for two months. Said judgment and order is challenged in this appeal. 7. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Chandrashekar R.P., learned Counsel for the accused: 8. Said judgment and order is challenged in this appeal. 7. Heard both side. Submissions of Sri Chandrashekar R.P., learned Counsel for the accused: 8. The motive alleged for the crime was the insistence of accused to victim to supply ration without a ration card. However, Ex.D1 shows that accused had possessed ration card. Ex.D1 was admitted by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore motive circumstance fails. Trial Court failed to appreciate the documentary evidence and the admission of the witnesses in that regard. There was unexplained delay in registering first information report and delivering the same to the Court. The trial Court failed to consider the same. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. The alleged eyewitnesses were all interested witnesses. They were the persons close to the deceased or the relatives of the deceased or they had animosity against the accused. Therefore they tried to falsely implicate him. Hence, the trial Court was in error in accepting their evidence. Even otherwise, the evidence shows that despite the accused holding ration card, deceased had deprived him of ration. Accused was a poor labourer, as he was not able to get his food, under frustration, he has assaulted the victim. But he had no intention to commit murder. Therefore his alleged act falls under Second Part of Section 304 of IPC. The impugned judgment and order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accused is in judicial custody since September 2016. He has undergone more than 9 years of imprisonment. Therefore reducing the conviction to Second Part of Section 304 of IPC and restricting the sentence to the detention period already undergone by him, he may be released. 9. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: (i) Atul Thakur v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 496 (ii) Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 3 SCC 247 (iii) Mariappan v. State, (2024) 2 SCC 598 (iv) Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1975 (v) Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 223 (vi) Markash Jajara v. State of Assam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1527 (vii) Rajesh v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Erode South Police State, Erode, 2012 (2) MWN (Cr.) 524 (DB) Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II: 10. by Inspector of Police, Erode South Police State, Erode, 2012 (2) MWN (Cr.) 524 (DB) Submissions of Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II: 10. Merely because eyewitnesses are relatives or the persons acquainted with the deceased, they cannot be branded as interested witnesses. Their presence at the scene of offence is rightly found probable. Nothing was elicited in their evidence to show that they had animosity against the accused or his conviction confers them any benefit. Therefore, they cannot be called as interested witnesses. The evidence of eyewitnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence and other evidence on record. There was recovery of weapon of offence and blood stained clothes of the accused at his instance under the mahazar/Ex.P9. PWs.12 and 13 mahazar witnesses have supported the proceedings under Ex.P9. FSL Report shows that clothes of the accused, deceased and the weapon seized were stained with human blood. Accused failed to explain how his clothes were stained with blood. Even otherwise, when the case is based on evidence of eyewitnesses, circumstance of motive or scientific evidence loose their significance. The fact of the accused coming to the scene of offence armed with weapon and assaulting the victim with that on vital parts clearly shows his intention. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that at the most the offence falls under Second Part of Section 304 of IPC. The judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the accused are not applicable to the facts of the case. Trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence and supplying sound reasons has convicted and sentenced the accused. Therefore the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference. 11. On hearing both side and on examining the materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is sustainable?” Analysis 12. Case of the prosecution is as follows: That victim Krishnappa was running fair price shop/public distribution shop for distributing ration to the public under Public Distribution Scheme. Accused without ration card was insisting Krishnappa to give him food grains. Krishnappa had declined to oblige and asked accused to get ration card, then only he will give him ration. In that regard, the accused quarreled with Krishnappa several times. Hence accused had nursed ill-will against the victim. Accused without ration card was insisting Krishnappa to give him food grains. Krishnappa had declined to oblige and asked accused to get ration card, then only he will give him ration. In that regard, the accused quarreled with Krishnappa several times. Hence accused had nursed ill-will against the victim. On 10.09.2016 at 8.10 p.m., Krishnappa, PWs.1 to 4 had assembled near shop of PW.5 to discuss regarding collection of contribution from the villagers for renovation of temple in their village. As others did not assemble, they decided that they can meet near village chawadi on the next morning at 8.00 a.m. At 8.30 p.m. when Krishnappa was returning near racchekatte, Chaldiganahalli village, Kolar Taluk, accused accosted Krishnappa and picked up quarrel with him. Taking objection for Krishnappa not giving him ration, with an intention to commit his murder, accused stabbed Krishnappa on his chest, stomach and waist. By that time, PWs.1 to 5 rushed to his rescue. Accused ran away with knife. Then PWs.1 to 6, 21 and CWs.8 and 9 shifted Krishnappa in Tata Ace Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-14-A-4441 belonging to CW.10 to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. But Krishnappa succumbed to the injuries on the way. 13. The case of the prosecution is based on the following: (i) That death of Krishnappa was homicidal one; (ii) Circumstance of motive; (iii) Evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.1 to 6 and 21; (iv) Circumstances of recovery of weapon and blood stained clothes of the accused; (v) Seizure of blood stained clothes of the deceased; & (vi) Forensic evidence and the evidence of the official witnesses. Reg. Nature of Death: 14. To prove that the victim died due to homicidal injuries, prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.19 and Ex.P21/postmortem report and the opinion of PW.19 as per Ex.P20 regarding possibility of injuries on the dead body being caused by weapon MO.1. PW.19/Medical Officer of Devaraja Urs Medical College, Kolar deposed that on 11.09.2016 on the requisition of the Investigating Officer, he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Krishnappa between 10.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon. He found the following injuries: “1. Incized wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep horizontally placed over chin. 2. Stab injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm wedge shaped horizontally placed over left nipple outer aspect of the wound margin is pointed. He found the following injuries: “1. Incized wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep horizontally placed over chin. 2. Stab injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm wedge shaped horizontally placed over left nipple outer aspect of the wound margin is pointed. On dissection it has cut the 4 th and 5 th rib anteriorly extend the pleural cavity and left lung through and through. On further dissection it has cut the pericardium and extends to the left ventricle. The direction of the stab wound is upwards, back wards and inwards and the total depth of the wound is 12 cms. 3. Stab injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm wedge shaped, vertically placed over outer aspect of left side of chest with sharp margins pointing downwards. It is situated in the mid axillary line, 20 cms from armpit and 18 cm from midline. On dissection it has cut the 10 th and 11 th rib anteriorly, extend the pleural cavity and left lung through and through at the base and made neck in the diaphragm. The direction of the stab wound is downwards forward and inwards and the depth of the wound is 10 cms. 4. Insized wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present over outer aspect of left lumber region, vertically placed, 16 cms below injury No. 3. 5. Insized wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present over outer aspect of left hip region, 6 cms lateral to anterior superior iliac spine.” 15. PW.19 deposed that death was due to stab injuries noted in the postmortem report. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that MO.1 could not have caused such injuries. Infact his evidence that on examining the weapon/MO.1, he had given report as per Ex.P20 was not denied at all. Further it was also not specifically denied that the injuries were stab injuries and they caused death. Only general suggestion was made to the effect that he has given opinion at the behest of the police which he denied. Who was the assailant may be another question, but the evidence of PW.19 that death was due to homicidal injuries was not impeached. Reg. Evidence of eyewitnesses and motive: 16. According to the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6, 21 and CWs.8 and 9 are eyewitnesses to the incident. Who was the assailant may be another question, but the evidence of PW.19 that death was due to homicidal injuries was not impeached. Reg. Evidence of eyewitnesses and motive: 16. According to the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6, 21 and CWs.8 and 9 are eyewitnesses to the incident. Out of them CWs.8 and 9 were not examined. Out of the eyewitnesses examined, PWs.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case. They denied having given statements/Exs.P5 and P6 before the Investigating Officer to the effect that they have witnessed the incident. 17. So far as PWs.1, 4 to 6 it was contended that they were either near and dear ones of the deceased or his relatives, thus they are interested witnesses. So far PW.21, it was contended he had animosity against the accused, therefore though he was not eyewitness he has deposed against the accused. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering who could be called as interested witnesses, in para 13 of the judgment in Sadayappan v. State, (2019) 9 SCC 257 has held as follows: “13. Criminal law jurisprudence makes a clear distinction between a related and interested witness. A witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. The witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished . [See: Sudhakar v. State (2018) 5 SCC 435 ]. (Emphasis supplied) 19. Reading of the above judgment shows that if the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is found credible, that cannot be rejected merely on the ground of such witnesses being relatives or friend of the victim. To claim that the witnesses are interested, accused has to demonstrate that his conviction is going to confer some benefit on such witnesses. The evidence of PWs.1, 4 to 6 and 21 has to be evaluated in the light of the aforesaid judgment. 20. PW.1 deposed that he is Secretary of Chaldiganahalli Milk Producers Co-operative Society and the victim was running ration shop in the village. He further deposed that during the time of the incident, they were contemplating renovation work of Anjaneya Temple of their village. Therefore PW.4 had asked them to assemble near shop of PW.5. Accordingly himself and PWs.2 to 4 assembled there. He further deposed that during the time of the incident, they were contemplating renovation work of Anjaneya Temple of their village. Therefore PW.4 had asked them to assemble near shop of PW.5. Accordingly himself and PWs.2 to 4 assembled there. As other people did not assemble, they decided to discuss on the next day and accordingly they went to the house of PW.4. After discussing about collection of contributions, when they were proceeding towards his house, victim came from the side of his house near Nagarakallu and when he enquired, victim stated that they can discuss after fair of the village and completion of daily work and saying so, when victim proceeded about 10 foot, he heard scream of the victim, he turned and saw accused stabbing the victim. All of them rushed there and offered some water to the victim. They secured car of CW.10 and took him to R.L.Jalappa Hospital. The doctor declared that he was dead. He further deposed that thereafter, he filed the complaint/Ex.P1 before Vemagal Police. He further deposed that on stabbing the victim thrice, accused ran away and the victim fell on the ground. He identified MO.1/knife used in the commission of the offence. 21. PW.1 further deposed that accused used to quarrel with the victim demanding ration from victim, without ration card and the victim would ask him to get ration card. PW.1 and others had also advised the accused accordingly. He was also witness to the spot mahazar/Ex.P2 during which blood stained mud/MO.2 and sample mud/MO.3 were seized. In the cross- examination of this witness, it was not disputed that he was resident of the same village. It was only suggested that accused had ration card and to trouble the accused at the behest of the police, he has filed false complaint implicating the accused. It is suggested to PW.1 in his cross-examination that himself and victim Krishnappa had consumed alcohol and Krishnappa collapsed due to heart attack in the drunken state which he denied. Whereas such suggestion was not made to PW.19/doctor who conducted postmortem examination. No motive was imputed to this witness for false implication. 22. PW.4 another resident of the same village deposed in line with PW.1 about convening of meeting on that day regarding collection of contribution for renovation of their village temple. Whereas such suggestion was not made to PW.19/doctor who conducted postmortem examination. No motive was imputed to this witness for false implication. 22. PW.4 another resident of the same village deposed in line with PW.1 about convening of meeting on that day regarding collection of contribution for renovation of their village temple. He further deposed that all of them assembled near the shop of PW.5 and they started to disperse as there was no quorum for the meeting. He also deposed about accused pestering the victim for disbursing ration without ration card and the victim declining the same. He deposed about they also advising him to get ration card. He further deposed that after their dispersal, when Krishnappa moved about 20 feet away from the shop, they heard some commotion and rushed there, found accused stabbing Krishnappa with knife on his stomach, chest and back due to which Krishnappa fell down. They offered water and made arrangement to shift him to the hospital. He also deposed that accused ran away and he identified MO.1/knife. In the cross-examination, he stood his ground about what all he said in chief-examination. When it was suggested to PW.1 that Krishnappa suffered heart attack due to alcohol consumption, to this witness it was suggested that Krishnappa was suffering from low blood pressure, therefore he suffered heart attack and fell down. The theory of alcoholism of Krishnappa was not put to him. It is to be noted that PW.4 was aged 76 years. Such elderly person of the village had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and probability of his presence at the scene of offence was not discredited. 23. As per the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 21, PW.5 Venkateshappa is the person who convened meeting for collection of contribution for renovation of village temple. PW.5 deposed about they assembling to discuss regarding collection of contribution for renovation of the temple in the village and they dispersing as other people did not assemble. He also deposed that when Krishnappa had proceeded 10-15 meters from the shop, accused talked about ration card, stabbed him and ran away. He identified MO.1/knife, the weapon of offence. In the cross-examination of this witness, the fact of he running the shop near the shop of victim and being elder of the village was not disputed. He also deposed that when Krishnappa had proceeded 10-15 meters from the shop, accused talked about ration card, stabbed him and ran away. He identified MO.1/knife, the weapon of offence. In the cross-examination of this witness, the fact of he running the shop near the shop of victim and being elder of the village was not disputed. It was only suggested to him that himself, PWs.1 and 3 are relatives and victim Krishnappa was also their relative. If at all PWs.1, 3 and 6 had conspired with each other to implicate the accused, then PW.3 also should have supported the prosecution case. PW.5 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the behest of PW.1. 24. PW.6 deposed that on the day of the incident, on the call of PW.5, himself, PWs.1, 3 and the victim and others had assembled near the shop of PW.5 to discuss about renovation of the temple of their village and as other people did not assemble, they started to disperse. When Krishnappa was returning, accused came from his front and stabbed him with knife. He also speaks about they rushing to help injured Krishnappa and accused running away. He further deposed about they shifting Krishnappa to the hospital and also about his death. It is no doubt true that in the cross-examination, he admitted that he is working in Bangalore. But he states that since three months prior to his evidence he was staying in Bangalore and before that for his work he used to travel from his village to Bangalore. In the cross-examination of this witness, it is suggested that Krishnappa died due to heart attack which was developed because of his alcoholism which the witness has denied. It is true that he had admitted that himself, the witnesses 1 to 5, 7 to 14 belong to the same community and from same village. But unless it is shown that conviction of the accused is going to confer some benefits on them, their evidence cannot be rejected only on that ground. On the contrary, the suggestion that they belong to the same village makes their presence probable at the scene of offence at the time of the incident. Further in the complaint, names of PWs.2 to 6 are reflected as the persons present at the scene of offence. 25. On the contrary, the suggestion that they belong to the same village makes their presence probable at the scene of offence at the time of the incident. Further in the complaint, names of PWs.2 to 6 are reflected as the persons present at the scene of offence. 25. It is to be noted that both PW.20 the Scientific Officer of RFSL, Mysuru and C.K.Muniyappa uncle of the accused are examined as PW.20 by the trial Court. There is error in showing the rank of Muniyappa as PW.20 in prosecution witness list, actually when he is PW.21. PW.21 also speaks about accused making galata against the victim demanding ration without ration card and that he advised the accused not to conduct in that manner. He also speaks about they meeting near shop of PW.5 for discussion regarding collection of contributions for renovation of their village temple and that he witnessed the accused assaulting the victim with MO.1 and running away etc. It is true that this witness in the cross-examination admits that there is enmity between the families of himself and the accused since many years. Even assuming that PW.21 had enmity against the accused and his evidence has to be excluded on that count, the evidence of PWs.1, 4 to 6 regarding they being eyewitnesses is consistent and credible. 26. Relying on Ex.D1 copy of the alleged ration card of the accused and admission of PW.6 that same belongs to the accused, it was contended that as per the aforesaid eyewitnesses motive for murder was demand for ration from the victim without holding ration card, but Ex.D1 and the evidence of PW.6 shows that the accused had ration card, thereby the foundation of the prosecution itself collapses, hence, the evidence of PWs.1, 4 to 6 and 21 ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court. 27. Admittedly, at the time of the incident, accused was residing in Chaldiganahalli, Kolar Taluk. His own document Ex.D1 shows that it was issued from the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department of Bangarpet. Original of Ex.D1 or atleast the entire copy of Ex.D1 was not produced. EX.D1 shows that it was issued on 25.11.2012. Nothing was produced to show that Ex.D1 was issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Kolar, covering Chaldiganahalli Village to avail the benefit of ration in Chaldiganahalli. Original of Ex.D1 or atleast the entire copy of Ex.D1 was not produced. EX.D1 shows that it was issued on 25.11.2012. Nothing was produced to show that Ex.D1 was issued by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Kolar, covering Chaldiganahalli Village to avail the benefit of ration in Chaldiganahalli. Ex.D1 does not indicate that it could be used in Chaldiganahalli to avail the ration from the shop of the deceased or to show that the accused was entitled to avail and the deceased was entitled to release the ration to him based on Ex.D1. The same was not confronted to PWs.1, 4, 5 and the Investigating Officer/PW.18. 28. Even in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused did not claim that Ex.D1 was his ration card and he could utilize the same to avail ration from the shop of the victim. Therefore genuineness of Ex.D1 is doubtful. Even otherwise whether that could be used in the shop of the victim in Chaldiganahalli is the next question. 29. As already noted, Ex.D1 was issued by Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Bangarpet Taluk. The fair price shop of victim Krishnappa is situated in Chaldiganahalli of Kolar Taluk. Government Order No.17 RPR 2011 Bengaluru, dated 03.07.2017 shows that the directions to implement One Nation One Ration Card Scheme was issued by Karnataka Government on 03.07.2017. The said Government Order reads as follows: 30. Above Government Order shows that the scheme of utilizing a ration card in any outlet was rolled out on 03.07.2017. Thus it becomes clear that as on the date of the offence, the facility of availing the food grains in any fair price outlet other than his card’s jurisdiction, by furnishing the aadhar card and ration card was not available to the accused. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the accused possessed the required ration card to avail the food grains in the shop of the victim in Chaldiganahalli, hence motive circumstance fails. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of PW.7 the wife of the deceased. 31. PW.7 deposed that on the date of the incident, PW.1 came to her house and informed her that accused had stabbed her husband and victim is taken to hospital. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of PW.7 the wife of the deceased. 31. PW.7 deposed that on the date of the incident, PW.1 came to her house and informed her that accused had stabbed her husband and victim is taken to hospital. Then herself, CW.11 Murali and her daughter went to the hospital and found her husband dead with the injuries on his chest, back and cheek. She also deposed that the accused used to quarrel with her husband regarding ration card and her husband used to tell him that he should get a ration card done and without ration card he is not empowered to distribute the food grains. Except suggesting that they have not filed the complaint against the accused regarding such previous galata by the accused, nothing was elicited to disbelieve her evidence regarding PW.1 informing her about the incident. Having lost her husband, she had no reason to falsely implicate the accused shielding true culprit if any other than the accused. Thus the trial Court was justified in holding that by evidence of aforesaid eyewitnesses the assault of the accused on the victim with MO.1/knife was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Reg. Recovery of MOs and forensic evidence: 32. According to the prosecution, on the instruction of PW.18 the Investigating Officer, PW.16/PSI and his staff apprehended the accused near Tippenahalli Road and produced him before PW.18 with their report/Ex.P12. PW.18 interrogated the accused and recorded his voluntary statement and recovered MO.1/the knife and MOs.4 and 5 the blood stained pant and shirt of the accused under mahazar/Ex.P9 in the presence of PWs.12 and 13. Though PW.12 in the chief examination supported the proceedings under Ex.P9, in the cross-examination admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P9. He also stated that he cannot say the day, date of Ex.P9 and who all had assembled at that time. He does not speak about the presence of PW.13 at the time of proceedings under Ex.P9. 33. So far as PW.13, in the chief examination, he does not say that the accused had concealed MO.1 on his body, on interrogation, he volunteered to produce the same and that was recovered. As against that he says that police recovered the knife which was in the waist of the accused and his clothes. 33. So far as PW.13, in the chief examination, he does not say that the accused had concealed MO.1 on his body, on interrogation, he volunteered to produce the same and that was recovered. As against that he says that police recovered the knife which was in the waist of the accused and his clothes. Such evidence does not amount to discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Though Ex.P23 the FSL report states that articles (1) and (3) to (9) namely, the alleged clothes of the accused, deceased, and knife were stained with human blood, but the blood group is not stated. Further grouping of blood of the accused and the deceased was not done for matching the same with the aforesaid articles. Hence that was also of no use of the prosecution. 34. Whether failure to prove such circumstances falsifies the entire case of the prosecution is the question. It is settled law that when the case is based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses and such evidence of eyewitnesses is found credible/trustworthy, failure to prove the other circumstances like motive, recovery etc. does not dent the core case of the prosecution. It is also settled law that minor omissions, contradictions, embellishment in the deposition of such eyewitnesses do not demolish the entire prosecution story, if the same is otherwise found credit worthy. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 64 and 65 of the judgment in Madan v. State of U.P. , (2023) 15 SCC 701 held as follows: “ 64 . The next contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the motive attributed by the prosecution is a very weak motive. It is submitted that the motive attributed is on account of political enmity due to elections which were held two and half years prior to the date of incident. The motive is specifically brought on record in the evidence of Lokendra (PW-1) and Irshad Khan (PW-7). Harpal Singh (PW-10) also deposed about the enmity between the families of Ishwar and Ram Kishan. In any case, the present case is a case of direct evidence. It is a settled law that though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct evidence, the motive would not be that relevant. 65. In any case, the present case is a case of direct evidence. It is a settled law that though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct evidence, the motive would not be that relevant. 65. In this respect, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of this Court in State of A.P. v. Bogam Chandraiah [ (1986) 3 SCC 637 ] which reads thus: "11. ……Another failing in the judgment is that the High Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove adequate motive for the commission of the offence without bearing in mind the well settled rule that when there is direct evidence of an acceptable nature regarding the commission of an offence the question of motive cannot loom large in the mind of the court." (Emphasis supplied) 35. Thus even if the circumstance of recovery and forensic evidence was not proved, the trial Court was justified in relying on the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the circumstance of motive in concluding that the overt act of the accused was proved. Reg. Conviction and sentence: 36. The claim of learned Counsel for the appellant that the acts of the accused do not amount to murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC was based on the following two grounds: (i) The act was committed without any premeditation and due to the provocation of he not getting food grains despite he possessing ration card; & (ii) That the accused was not a person of sound state of mind. 37. The contention that the accused possessed a ration card i.e. Ex.D1 to avail the food grains from the shop of the victim is already rejected. Therefore, ground that accused committed offence due to grave and sudden provocation fails. Further, reading of Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC shows that such provocation should not have been sought by the accused himself and he should not have been voluntarily provoked. Explanation to Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC shows that whether provocation was grave and sudden depends upon the facts of each case. 38. In the present case, the accused aged 36 years himself goes with the knife to the victim aged 58 years who was walking on the road unarmed and suddenly attacks him. Explanation to Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC shows that whether provocation was grave and sudden depends upon the facts of each case. 38. In the present case, the accused aged 36 years himself goes with the knife to the victim aged 58 years who was walking on the road unarmed and suddenly attacks him. It is not a case of the accused dealing with single blow on the victim. He has stabbed the victim multiple times on the vital parts of the body. Therefore, the contention that the accused had no intention to commit murder or that he had no knowledge that such injuries could cause death deserves no merit. 39. So far as the defence of unsoundness mind of the accused, it is relevant to refer to Section 84 of IPC which reads as follows: “84. Act of a person of unsound mind Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it , by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” 40. Before the trial Court, the accused had not taken the defence of Section 84 of IPC. Even in the cross-examination of PW.21/uncle of the accused himself, such defence of mental unsoundness of mind of the accused was not taken. For the first time before this Court relying on the voluntary statement of the accused found in the Committal Court records, it was contended that the said statement shows that the accused had taken treatment in NIMHANS for his mental health issue and the trial Court should have considered the same. It was further contended that the Investigating Officer deposed that since the accused was to be sent to jail, he was not taken to NIMHANS before producing him with remand application. 41. The accused himself denied having given any such voluntary statement. Even otherwise in the said statement dated 11.09.2016 the accused said to have confessed that he prior to such statement. The evidence on record shows that the accused had wife and children and he was pursuing his avocation at the time of the incident. The very fact of he trying to handle his ration card issue shows that he was worldly wise. 42. The evidence on record shows that the accused had wife and children and he was pursuing his avocation at the time of the incident. The very fact of he trying to handle his ration card issue shows that he was worldly wise. 42. Further having regard to such contention, this Court sought the medical report of the accused regarding his mental health condition. The Chief Medical Officer of the Central Prison, Bengaluru submitted the report along with the discharge summary of the accused issued by the Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. The said report shows that the accused was treated in NIMHANS and Victoria Hospital for his general medical conditions. The report and the discharge summary show that the accused had seizure disorder since thirty years, but no mental health issues and he is on regular medication for epilepsy and parkinsons disease. Accused has not whispered anything about his any mental health condition in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus there is no merit in the contention that the case falls under Section 84 of IPC. 43. Reading of the judgments relied on by learned Counsel for the accused in support of his submissions regarding Second Part of Section 304 of IPC show that in those cases on facts the Court found that the act of the accused therein were not premeditated etc. Hence, benefit Second Part of Section 304 of IPC was extended. But in this case, the above discussions show that the appellant himself was the aggressor and attacked with intention to commit the murder of the victim. Hence, those judgments are not applicable to the facts of this case. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no grounds warranting interference with the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.