JUDGMENT : RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J. 1. The appellant is the 2nd accused in S.C. No. 568 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. In the said case, he along with one Nithin Das and Nikesh @ Rahul were tried for having committed offence punishable under Sections 34 1 , 294(b), 323, 302 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25000/- with a default clause. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were acquitted of charges under Section 302 of the IPC and were convicted and sentenced for minor offences. We are, in this appeal, concerned only with the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed against the 2nd accused. 2. As per the charge, the prosecution alleges that the 1st accused was harboring animosity towards Sumesh, the deceased, who was an electrician by profession. On 18.11.2015, at about 7:45 a.m., the deceased Sumesh was standing within the holy precincts of the Edakkadavu Temple at Maruthady, Kollam, engaged in conversation with one Muthu (PW8). At that time, the appellants arrived at the temple on a motorcycle ridden by the 3rd accused. The prosecution further alleges that the 1st accused was armed with a sword, while the appellant was carrying a knife. The accused rushed into the temple premises and reached the area near the Namaskara Mandapam. It is alleged that the 1st accused, after exhorting his companions to “do away with” Sumesh, struck the deceased on both shoulders with the blunt side of the sword. Immediately thereafter, the 3rd accused wrongfully restrained Sumesh and slapped him twice on the face. The appellant is then alleged to have driven the knife he was holding into the left side of Sumesh’s chest, causing a grievous penetrating injury which proved fatal. Following the assault, the accused fled from the scene on the same motorcycle. Though Sumesh was immediately rushed to the District Hospital, Kollam, his life could not be saved. 3. PW10, the Additional S.I. attached to the Sakthikulangara Police Station, recorded the statement of Muthu (PW8) at 9.40 a.m. on 18.11.2015. On the basis of the above statement, he registered Crime No. 1678 of 2015 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station (Ext.P8). 4. Though Sumesh was immediately rushed to the District Hospital, Kollam, his life could not be saved. 3. PW10, the Additional S.I. attached to the Sakthikulangara Police Station, recorded the statement of Muthu (PW8) at 9.40 a.m. on 18.11.2015. On the basis of the above statement, he registered Crime No. 1678 of 2015 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station (Ext.P8). 4. PW11, the Circle Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kollam, took over the investigation on 18.11.2015. He initially proceeded to the District Hospital, Kollam, where he conducted the inquest (Ext.P9) over the body of the deceased. During the inquest, he seized the articles found on the body of the deceased, which were subsequently included in Ext.P10 property list. Thereafter, the body was sent to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, for post-mortem examination. The scientific expert reached the scene of occurrence and collected trace evidence. Traces of the blood of the deceased, as well as his mobile phone and other material objects found at the scene, were seized. On the same day, PW11 prepared Ext.P1 Scene Mahazar. The appellant, who had been apprehended by local residents, was rescued by PW10 and brought to the Sakthikulangara Police Station. His arrest was recorded as per Ext.P11 arrest memo. Based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, and as led by him, the weapon used for the commission of the offence, along with the clothes worn by him, were recovered under Ext.P2 Seizure Mahazar. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were arrested on 19.11.2015, and recoveries were effected pursuant to their respective disclosure statements. Upon receipt of the scene plan from the Village Officer and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report from the Scientific Analyst, PW11 completed the investigation and laid the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. Committal proceedings were thereafter initiated in accordance with law, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 6. In the trial that followed, 11 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 11. Through them, Exts.P1 to P29 were exhibited and marked. The material objects were produced and identified as MOs 1 to 10. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances emerging therefrom were put to the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The appellant denied all allegations and asserted that he had been taken from his house and falsely implicated in the case. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances emerging therefrom were put to the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The appellant denied all allegations and asserted that he had been taken from his house and falsely implicated in the case. On the side of the defence, the appellant’s mother was examined as DW1. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, upon a detailed evaluation of the evidence, found that the testimonies of PWs 8 and 9, who were projected as eye-witnesses by the prosecution, were cogent, credible, and trustworthy. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence were found to be inconsequential and insufficient to discredit their version. The Court further held that the prosecution had successfully established the recovery of MO6 knife based on the information furnished by the appellant, and that such recovery constituted a reliable piece of evidence linking the appellant to the commission of the offence. The presence of blood belonging to the deceased at the scene of crime, and the detection of the same blood group on MO6, the weapon recovered at the instance of the appellant, were considered strong corroborative evidence establishing his guilt. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the testimony of DW1, the appellant’s mother, holding that her version did not inspire confidence. 8. Sri. Prathap G. Padikkal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in accepting the testimonies of PWs 8 and 9 as credible. According to him, though the incident occurred at 7:45 a.m., within a distance of less than four kilometres from the Police Station, the information reached the Station only at 9:40 a.m., and yet, from Ext.P8 FIR, it is seen that the crime was registered only at 2:34 p.m. The learned counsel argued that such an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR casts serious doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case. 9. He further contended that neither PW8 nor PW9 had any prior acquaintance with the appellant. PW8 had stated that his statement was recorded only after the police had prepared the mahazar, and if that were so, there was no justification for delaying the registration of the FIR until 2:40 p.m. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imrat Singh and Ors. PW8 had stated that his statement was recorded only after the police had prepared the mahazar, and if that were so, there was no justification for delaying the registration of the FIR until 2:40 p.m. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imrat Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 536 and Jaffrudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 to bring home his point that any delay in registering the FIR results in embellishments which is a creature of an afterthought. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgments rendered by this Court in Rajesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2020 (6) KHC 488 and Raju v. State of Kerala, 2018 (1) KLT 565 to submit that delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses is equally fatal. It was further contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting the recovery of MO6 as credible evidence when the investigating officer had failed to strictly follow the prescribed procedure during its seizure. 10. Smt. T.V. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial court. She submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a well-reasoned finding of guilt. According to her, there was no reason to doubt the testimonies of PWs 8 and 9, who were natural witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence was unquestionable. They had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Being truthful witnesses, minor discrepancies in their accounts were only natural. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful and elaborate appraisal of the evidence, rightly held that their testimony bore the ring of truth. The 4 learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the combined weight of the ocular testimony, scientific evidence, and recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant established beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution’s case and the appellant’s role in the murder of Sumesh. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the entire records. 12. To establish that the death of Sumesh was homicidal, the prosecution examined Dr. Sasikala (PW7), Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the entire records. 12. To establish that the death of Sumesh was homicidal, the prosecution examined Dr. Sasikala (PW7), Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She stated that she had conducted the autopsy of Sumesh @ Kuttan, the deceased in Crime No. 1678 of 2015 of the Sakthikulangara Police Station and noted an incised penetrating wound 1.9 x 0.3 cms obliquely placed on the left side of front of chest outer to midline and 11.1 cm below the top of breast bone. Chest cavity was seen pierced by cutting the lower border of 4th and upper border, 5th costal cartilage and 4th intercostal space and adjoining sternum, piercing the pericardium (2 x 0.4 x 0.1cm) muscles of right ventricle (1.4 x 0.2 x 0.6cm) obliquely, 5cm above apex, intra pericardium, part of Aorta just above the attachment of the posterior cusp of the semilunar valve (1.5x1.2x0.2cm) transfixing the left atrium (0.8x0.2x0.3cm) and entering the lumen of esophagus through the front wall (0.8x0.2x0.2cm) and terminated at the back wall of esophagus (0.5x0.2x0.1cm). She stated that death was due to penetrating injury sustained to the chest. When MO6 weapon was shown to her, she stated that the said weapon could cause the fatal injury as noted in Ext.P6. Before us, no contention was advanced by learned counsel to dispute these medical conclusions. We, therefore, hold with certainty that the death of Sumesh was homicidal. 13. We shall now deal with the evidence let in by the prosecution. 14. The witnesses cited to prove the occurrence were PWs 8 and 9. At the time of tendering evidence, PW8 was 67 years old. He stated that he was a member of the Temple Advisory Committee of the Edakkad Kavu Temple. The deceased, Sumesh, was an electrician who used to undertake electrification work in the temple whenever required. On 18.11.2015, temple festivities were being organized as it was an auspicious period of the month. PW8 had requested Sumesh to install two tube lights in the temple premises. He met Sumesh on his way to the temple and conveyed the same to him. PW8 reached the temple on his motorcycle, and Sumesh followed close behind on his bicycle. On 18.11.2015, temple festivities were being organized as it was an auspicious period of the month. PW8 had requested Sumesh to install two tube lights in the temple premises. He met Sumesh on his way to the temple and conveyed the same to him. PW8 reached the temple on his motorcycle, and Sumesh followed close behind on his bicycle. While they were conversing inside the temple premises, standing in front of the Sreekovil, a motorcycle approached from the eastern side carrying three persons. They were armed and shouting loudly. The motorcycle stopped in front of the temple. Unnikuttan (A1), brandishing a sword, rushed toward Sumesh and swung the weapon at his shoulder, which Sumesh managed to evade. Thereafter, Rahul (A3) came forward, hurled abuses, and slapped Sumesh twice on his face. Immediately thereafter, A2 inflicted a stab injury on Sumesh’s chest, causing him to fall backward. The assailants then fled the scene on their motorcycle. PW8, shocked by the suddenness and brutality of the incident, raised an alarm. Sumathi (CW2), Santhi Vasudevan (CW3), and Sreekumar (CW4) rushed to the spot. They used a bath towel to tie around the wound after removing the victim’s shirt. Sumesh was then taken to the hospital. PW8, being in a state of shock, did not accompany him. Later, he learned that Sumesh had succumbed to the injuries. The police soon arrived at the scene, prepared a mahazar, and seized Sumesh’s shirt and mobile phone lying there. At about 9:45 a.m., PW8 was summoned by the police, and his statement was recorded. He identified his signature on Ext.P5 statement. PW8 also deposed that he had identified the accused at the Police Station, stating that he knew them from their occasional visits to the temple. He identified the accused in the dock during trial. In cross-examination, he stated that he was summoned to the Police Station only after the preparation of the mahazar. He affirmed that the appellant was facing the deceased when he inflicted the stab injury and that the 1st accused stood behind while striking with the sword. He admitted that he did not know the names of the accused and that the scene of occurrence was located beside the Namaskara Mandapam. He also acknowledged that he had not mentioned to the Police any distinctive physical features of the 2nd accused or any specific details about the knife used in the assault. 15. He admitted that he did not know the names of the accused and that the scene of occurrence was located beside the Namaskara Mandapam. He also acknowledged that he had not mentioned to the Police any distinctive physical features of the 2nd accused or any specific details about the knife used in the assault. 15. PW9, a cook by profession, stated that he too had witnessed the incident in which Sumesh sustained the fatal stab injury. On 18.11.2015, at about 11:00 a.m., he, along with his wife and two children, visited the temple. As he was preparing for his Sabarimala pilgrimage, he had come to the temple to perform the sacred ritual of preparing the “Irumudikettu,” the two-compartment cloth bundle that devotees carry on their heads during the pilgrimage. He laid out a straw mat in front of the Ganapathy temple and began filling the Irumudikettu. At that time, he heard the loud sound of a motorcycle and the shouts of several men. He looked up and saw one person strike Sumesh from behind while another slapped him on the cheek. A third person standing in front then stabbed Sumesh in the chest. PW9 froze momentarily on witnessing the attack. He stated that Ratheesh (CW6) and Rajesh (CW7), who were nearby, took a bath towel from him and tied it around Sumesh’s wound. He left for home immediately thereafter and later learned that Sumesh had died. PW9 further stated that just before the incident, Sumesh was seen conversing with Muthu (PW8), a member of the Temple Advisory Committee. He recognized one of the assailants as a mahout who worked in a temple and identified him as accused No. 1. He identified MO1, the sword used by the 1st accused, as well as the 2nd accused as the person who inflicted the stab injury, and MO6 as the knife used by him. He also identified A3 as the person who slapped Sumesh. In cross-examination, he stated that he was seated facing west, while the incident took place on the eastern side. He turned back on hearing the commotion and then saw the attack. He saw three men running toward the deceased and later leaving the temple together. It was brought out that the occurrence took place on the southern side of the Namaskara Mandapam. He admitted to having prior acquaintance with accused Nos. He turned back on hearing the commotion and then saw the attack. He saw three men running toward the deceased and later leaving the temple together. It was brought out that the occurrence took place on the southern side of the Namaskara Mandapam. He admitted to having prior acquaintance with accused Nos. 1 and 2, though he was unaware of their names. When asked about their clothing, he stated that the 1st accused was wearing an ochre lungi and shirt, while the 2nd accused was wearing an ochre kaily and a white shirt printed with black flowers. He added that he was questioned by the police only on the third day after the incident. At that time, he had been sitting inside a temporary shed while preparing the “Irumudikettu”. He confirmed that he was familiar with Sumesh prior to the incident but admitted that he had not mentioned to the Police any distinctive features of the motorcycle used by the assailants. 16. PW1 is the attestor to Ext.P1 Scene Mahazar. He stated that upon receiving information regarding the incident, he proceeded to the temple, where he found PW8 and certain Police Officers already present. He further stated that an Officer was engaged in collecting samples at the scene. PW1, being a resident of the immediate vicinity of the temple, also deposed that he was present during the seizure of the mobile phone and other articles from the spot. 17. PW2 is the attestor to Ext.P2 Seizure Mahazar. When examined, he stated that on 18.11.2015, the Police had arrived at the location, and one Sreekuttan was also present along with him. However, the witness was unable to identify the 2nd accused, and, instead, erroneously pointed towards the 1st accused, Unnikuttan. According to PW2, the knife was kept on top of a television set, and it was from that place that the weapon was seized. He further deposed that the accused had also handed over a shirt and a lungi. The witness, however, did not fully support the prosecution case, and upon the request of the learned Public Prosecutor, permission was granted to put questions in the nature of cross-examination by invoking Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872. 18. PW3 was examined to prove Ext.P3 Seizure Mahazar relating to the recovery of MO1 sword, which was allegedly seized pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the 1st accused. 18. PW3 was examined to prove Ext.P3 Seizure Mahazar relating to the recovery of MO1 sword, which was allegedly seized pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the 1st accused. PW4 was examined to prove Ext.P4 Mahazar prepared at the time of seizure of the motorbike used by the accused to reach the scene of occurrence. PW5, the Village Officer, was examined to prove Ext.P5 Scene Plan prepared by him. PW6, the Scientific Officer attached to the District Crime Records Bureau, Kollam City, deposed that he had visited the scene of crime and collected blood samples and other material evidence for scientific examination. 19. Having carefully considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution primarily relies on the oral testimony of PWs 8 and 9, who have categorically stated before the Court that they were present inside the temple premises at the relevant time and had witnessed the occurrence in which the deceased sustained the fatal injury inflicted by the accused. The prosecution further places reliance on the evidence of PW3 to establish the recovery of the weapon of offence, namely MO6 knife, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant. 20. A serious attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 and to persuade this Court that their testimonies were unreliable. Having carefully examined the evidence of PW8 in detail, we find that the said witness, being a member of the Temple Advisory Committee, had every reason to be present at the temple. The deceased was the electrician engaged to fix certain tube lights in preparation for the impending temple festivities. PW8, who had a passing acquaintance with the accused, has given a cogent and consistent account of the incident. He stated in detail the events commencing from the arrival of the accused on a motorcycle, their loud exhortations as they rushed toward the deceased, the individual roles played by each accused, to the infliction of the fatal stab injury by the appellant and their subsequent departure from the scene. It is evident from his testimony that he was deeply shocked by the sudden and violent turn of events within the temple premises. It is evident from his testimony that he was deeply shocked by the sudden and violent turn of events within the temple premises. The witness, who was in his mid-sixties, narrated the sequence of events in a manner that clearly establishes his presence at the scene and his opportunity to witness the gruesome incident firsthand. 21. PW9, on the other hand, was a devotee who had come to the temple to tie the “Irumudikettu.” He too deposed that he saw a motorcycle arrive carrying three persons, heard their loud shouts, and, upon turning in their direction, witnessed the ensuing attack. In our view, his testimony also bears the ring of truth and spontaneity. 22. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that PWs 8 and 9 are neither reliable nor truthful cannot be accepted. On a close reading of the cross-examination, it is apparent that not even a single suggestive question was put to indicate that these witnesses were interested, biased, or motivated to falsely implicate the accused. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 354 a witness is normally considered independent unless he or she emanates from sources likely to be tainted. Each case must, therefore, be judged on its own facts. After evaluating the evidence of PWs 8 and 9, we find no reason to doubt their version. There is also no case for the appellant that these witnesses were related to the deceased. In that view of the matter, there is no plausible basis for suggesting that they had any reason to shield the real culprit or falsely implicate the appellant. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has further urged that there are material discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 8 and 9, rendering their version unsafe to rely upon. We are unable to accept this submission. The Apex Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that the testimony of a witness must be viewed holistically and with due regard to human limitations in perception and recollection. It would be wholly unrealistic to weigh the evidence of witnesses on the proverbial golden scale; rather, the approach should be to assess whether the testimony as a whole inspires confidence and satisfies a reasonable standard of cogency. Every individual perceives and recalls events differently. It would be wholly unrealistic to weigh the evidence of witnesses on the proverbial golden scale; rather, the approach should be to assess whether the testimony as a whole inspires confidence and satisfies a reasonable standard of cogency. Every individual perceives and recalls events differently. Two eye-witnesses to the same incident may describe it in varying degrees of detail depending on their mental state, vantage point, and composure at the time. A brutal murder is a traumatic event, often witnessed only once in a lifetime, and may leave a lasting but emotionally charged impression. One witness may have a strong capacity to observe and retain fine details, whereas another, overwhelmed by shock, may recall only the broader sequence of events. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, AIR 1981 SC 1390 discrepancies in testimony are inevitable, however honest and truthful the witness may be. Such variations are often attributable to normal errors of observation, memory lapses due to time, or the mental condition of the witness at the moment of the crime. Only those discrepancies that are unnatural or inconsistent with the normal course of human conduct can be termed material. It is equally well settled that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, or embellishments on trivial matters, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case, cannot form a valid ground to discard the evidence in its entirety. 24. The defence had attempted to disprove the recovery of MO6 at the instance of the appellant on the strength of Exhibit P2 mahazar. Through DW1, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. The attempt was to show that the building from where the weapon was seized does not belong to the appellant or to his family. In the case on hand, there is no reason to bank on the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused. 24.1 The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to the delay in registering the FIR. In the case on hand, the incident had taken place at about 7.40 p.m. on 18.11.2015. From the FI Statement itself, it is evident that the injured was immediately rushed to the District Hospital, Kollam. 24.1 The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to the delay in registering the FIR. In the case on hand, the incident had taken place at about 7.40 p.m. on 18.11.2015. From the FI Statement itself, it is evident that the injured was immediately rushed to the District Hospital, Kollam. Muthu (PW8), an eye-witness to the occurrence, went to the Police Station and lodged his statement at 9.40 a.m. From the evidence of PW11, the investigating officer, it can be seen that he went to the mortuary at the District Hospital, Kollam and prepared Ext.P9 inquest. A perusal of Ext.P9 would reveal that the preparation of the inquest commenced at 11 a.m. on 18.11.2015 and ended at 12.30 p.m. on 18.11.2015. The inquest reached the court on 19.11.2015. Ext.P8 is the FIR, which was registered at 2.34 p.m. on 18.11.2015. After registration of the FIR, it was forwarded to the court immediately and the same is seen to have reached the court at 4.20 p.m. on the same day. From the above sequence of events, it can be seen that there is not much delay in registering the FIR or the FIR reaching court. 25. A valiant attempt was made by the learned counsel to persuade us to hold that the offence committed will attract the punishment under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and not murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC. 26. The Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another, (1976) 4 SCC 382 has delineated the principles to be borne in mind when the court is confronted with the question of whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. After referring to Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1958) SCR 1495 the locus classicus, it was held as follows: “21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such a causal connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of “murder” contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code.” 27. In Anpazhagan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC Online SC 857 the Apex Court, has observed that even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder. It was also observed that when a single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. 28. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. 28. In the case on hand, PW7, the Forensic Surgeon, has noted that the deceased had sustained a single deep, incised-penetrating stab wound on the left side of the front of the chest, about 11cm below the top of the breastbone. The wound, though only about 1.9 cm long on the surface, travelled inward with great force through the 4th intercostal space, cutting the 4th and 5th costal cartilages and even part of the sternum. The stab track then pierced the protective sac of the heart (pericardium) and passed through the wall of the right ventricle and part of the left atrium, also cutting a portion of the aorta just above the semilunar valve, one of the most vital and vulnerable regions of the heart. The blade continued backward to enter the esophagus through its front wall and came to rest at its back wall, showing that the weapon had completely traversed the chest cavity. This single blow was inflicted with considerable force and passed through several life-sustaining organs, the heart, aorta, and esophagus, causing massive internal bleeding and resulting in instantaneous death. The nature, depth, and direction of the wound clearly establish that it was a grave, homicidal injury, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 29. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has evaluated the entire evidence and has rightly arrived at the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. This Appeal is dismissed.