Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 70 (BOM)

Shyam Damodar Inchal v. State of Maharashtra

2025-01-08

S.M.MODAK, SARANG V.KOTWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : Sarang V. Kotwal, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the original accused in Sessions Case No.448 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai. Vide his Judgment and order dated 11.05.2017, the learned Judge convicted him. The case involved commission of murder of two victims Seema Inchal and Rajendra Rane. Seema was the appellant’s wife and Rajendra washis friend. At the conclusion of the trial, the Appellant was convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the I.P.C. under two separate heads for committing two murders. For each of these heads, he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for six months. He was also convicted for commission of offence U/s.324 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to one Mitesh and for that offence he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was given set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the Appellant was suspecting that there was illicit relation between Mitesh and the Appellant’s wife. On 07.01.2013, in the afternoon, the Appellant called Mitesh to his house. The second victim Rajendra happened to accompany Mitesh to the appellant’s house. The Appellant questioned Mitesh and his own wife about the relationship. The quarrel took place and it is alleged that the Appellant stabbed his wife multiple times. He also stabbed Rajendra multiple times. But he allowed Mitesh to escape. Mitesh went to the police station. He was followed by the Appellant. The Appellant was carrying the murder weapon. He was arrested. His clothes and the weapon were seized. In the meantime, the police on the patrolling duty were informed. They went to the spot and removed the victims to the hospital. The F.I.R. was lodged vide C.R.No.11 of 2013 at Sakinaka police station, under sections 302 and 307 of the I.P.C. against the Appellant for committing murder of Seema and Rajendra and also for committing the offence U/s.307 of the I.P.C. for causing injuries to Mitesh. The investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. The investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses including the injured Mitesh, the Appellant’s daughter, the pancha witnesses, the Medical Officers, the victim Seema’s father, the victim Rajendra’s wife and the police officers. The defence of the Appellant, as is reflected from his examination U/s.313 of the Cr.p.c., was of total denial. The Appellant examined Head Constable Shivaji Malgunde as DW-1 to prove that he himself had suffered injuries in the offence. 4. The learned Judge relied on the evidence of PW-1 who was an injured eye witness. He considered whether the offence would fall within any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the I.P.C. and ultimately, he reached the conclusion that the Appellant had committed the offence U/s.302 of the I.P.C. The learned Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as mentioned earlier. 5. PW-1 Mitesh Ghonge is the most important witness in this case. He has deposed that he was residing at Jogeshwari. He was working with a company in the marketing department. He was working as an Agent for that company. His job profile was to sell holiday packages to the customers. The head office of the company was at Wadala. It had different branches. The Appellant was known to him. He identified the Appellant in the Court. The Appellant used to work with him as a part time job. PW-1 also knew Rajendra Rane in connection with his business. 6. On 07.01.2013, there was a meeting of Agents in Rajendra’s house. It was held in the morning at Jogeshwari. The Appellant and PW-1 attended the meeting. It continued till about 2:45p.m. The Appellant gave two forms to PW-1 for giving them in their Borivali branch. PW-1 reached that branch at about 3:30p.m. After some time, Rajendra Rane came to that office. After giving those forms in that office, PW-1 called the Appellant. The first call could not get connected. He gave another call. At that time, though the phone was ringing on the other side, it was not answered by the Appellant. Within 5 minutes, PW-1 received the call from the Appellant; who told PW-1 that the second call which was unanswered was made on the Appellant’s wife’s phone number. The first call could not get connected. He gave another call. At that time, though the phone was ringing on the other side, it was not answered by the Appellant. Within 5 minutes, PW-1 received the call from the Appellant; who told PW-1 that the second call which was unanswered was made on the Appellant’s wife’s phone number. The Appellant wanted explanation from PW-1 as to why he called on the phone number of his wife. Therefore, the Appellant called PW-1 to his house. He was agitated. According to PW-1, after that, PW-1 and Rajendra Rane started going to the Appellant’s house to meet him. They stopped at Sangharsh Nagar stop. They went by PW-1’s car. The Appellant was waiting near that stop. Both of them met the Appellant. The Appellant sat in the car and all of them had a discussion. PW-1 explained to him that he had three phone numbers of the Appellant and perhaps the number on which he had made the phone call was given to him by the Appellant’s wife. PW-1 and Rajendra told the Appellant that there should not be any misunderstanding and that PW-1 was like his family. The Appellant then invited both of them to his house. They went near the Appellant’s house. PW-1 parked his car. They went to the house of the Appellant. The Appellant’s children and wife were taking their meals. The children were sent outside by the Appellant after their meals. 7. PW-1 then has described the actual incident. The Appellant put a lock from inside. He slapped his wife and questioned her as to why she had given that phone number to PW-1. Though, PW-1 and Rajendra tried to stop him, the Appellant took his wife in the kitchen. PW-1 heard shouts of the Appellant’s wife. Both of them rushed to the kitchen and saw that the Appellant was stabbing his wife in the stomach with a knife causing severe bleeding. She fell down. They tried to catch the Appellant who started beating both of them. He was very angry. He gave a blow of knife on the left side of PW-1’s stomach causing bleeding injury. PW-1 also suffered other minor injuries with the knife. The Appellant gave knife blows in the stomach of Rajendra causing serious injuries. Rajendra collapsed on the floor. The Appellant gave blows with the knife on Rajendra’s chest. He was very angry. He gave a blow of knife on the left side of PW-1’s stomach causing bleeding injury. PW-1 also suffered other minor injuries with the knife. The Appellant gave knife blows in the stomach of Rajendra causing serious injuries. Rajendra collapsed on the floor. The Appellant gave blows with the knife on Rajendra’s chest. PW-1 caught the Appellant’s hand and told him to open the door. PW-1 has further deposed that the Appellant gave a key of the lock to him and allowed him to go. The Appellant rushed to Sakinaka police station. The Appellant followed him to the same police station with knife in his hand. PW-1 was sent to Rajawadi Hospital, Ghatkopar. He was admitted there. He took treatment. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. It was treated as an F.I.R. It is produced on record at Exhibit-14. PW-1’s clothes were seized. He identified his clothes and the knife in the Court. He came to know that, both, Seema and Rajendra had succumbed to their injuries. In the cross-examination, he was asked about some omissions from his statement given to the police. Those omissions were in respect of depositing the forms, his two unsuccessful calls to the appellant, the Appellant meeting them at a bus stop in angry mood. All these facts were not found in the police statement. Though, according to him, he had told all these facts to the police. He could not assign any reason for those omissions in his police statement. He was given suggestions that, he was frequently calling the Appellant’s wife on her phone number. He denied that suggestion. He also denied that, he used to visit Seema in the Appellant’s absence. He denied that, he used to meet Seema at different places and that whenever he visited her house, he used to send her children outside the house on some pretext. He denied the suggestion that he was having illicit relations with the Appellant’s wife. He further answered in the cross-examination that, he left the Appellant’s house at 7:00p.m., but he could not tell the exact time. He reached the police station within 15 minutes. The Appellant reached there after five months. He accepted that the neighbours had gathered outside the Appellant’s house when he rushed out. He further answered in the cross-examination that, he left the Appellant’s house at 7:00p.m., but he could not tell the exact time. He reached the police station within 15 minutes. The Appellant reached there after five months. He accepted that the neighbours had gathered outside the Appellant’s house when he rushed out. He denied the suggestion that the Appellant was telling others that PW-1 had killed the Appellant’s wife and that he should be caught. The Appellant’s defence was put in the form of suggestions which PW-1 denied. He denied that, he went to meet Seema in the Appellant’s house, he had sent her children out of the house and he was alone with the Appellant’s wife. He denied that, after some time, Rajendra knocked the door. When PW-1 opened the door, Rajendra saw PW-1 and the Appellant’s wife in compromising position. Then PW-1 assaulted Rajendra. In the meantime, the Appellant and his children came to the house. The Appellant’s wife tried to save Rajendra and in the scuffle Rajendra and the Appellant’s wife suffered injuries. All these suggestions and the defence taken by the Appellant was denied by PW-1. In further cross-examination, he deposed that, neither PW-1 nor Rajendra stopped the Appellant from putting a lock on the door from inside. The incident lasted for about one hour. The neighbours were knocking the door from the outside. The F.I.R. produced at Exhibit-14 shows that, it was registered at 9:15p.m. on 07.01.2013 and the police station was informed about the occurrence at 7:00p.m. on that evening. The F.I.R. describes the actual incident of assault as is deposed by him in his deposition. 8. Another important witness is the daughter of the Appellant who was examined as PW-8. She was 15 years of age at the time of her deposition; that means she was around 13 years of age at the time of the incident. She was studying in the 7 th standard. There were two elder sisters and two younger brothers to her. She has described the incident. According to her, on 07.01.2013, she returned from her school at 6:00p.m. Her brothers were in the house. After some time, PW-1 came to their house. He asked PW-8 and her brother to go out. One of the brothers had already left for his dance practice. PW-1 closed the door from inside. She has described the incident. According to her, on 07.01.2013, she returned from her school at 6:00p.m. Her brothers were in the house. After some time, PW-1 came to their house. He asked PW-8 and her brother to go out. One of the brothers had already left for his dance practice. PW-1 closed the door from inside. After 15 minutes, the Appellant and Rajendra came to their house and knocked on the door, but it was not opened. After some time the door was opened. The Appellant and Rajendra went inside. After some time, she heard the noise of quarrel between her parents. She called the neighbours. They knocked on the door. After some time, her father i.e. the Appellant opened the door. He was having a knife in his hand. He had caught PW-1. She got frightened. The Appellant and PW-1 then went away. PW-8 entered the house and saw the situation where both the victims were lying in a pool of blood. In the cross-examination, she deposed that PW-1 used to visit her house frequently between 5:00p.m. to 7:00p.m. when the appellant was not in the house. PW-1 used to bring something to eat and used to send the children outside the house. Her mother had told her not to disclose about this to the Appellant. According to her, PW-1 used to call her mother. The Appellant had told his wife not to keep any contact with PW-1. According to her, she told the Appellant that PW-1 was inside the house at the time of incident. The Appellant knocked on the door loudly. After that, the Appellant and Rajendra both went inside. Rajendra entered first. 9. PW-9 Digambar Waghmare was Seema’s father. According to him, the relations between the Appellant and Seema were cordial, but from 04.08.2006 there was quarrel and dispute between the Appellant and Seema. This witness did not know the cause of the quarrel. He has also deposed about the threat given by the Appellant. But, it would be a hearsay evidence as he himself had not heard it and it was told by his daughter in law and not by the deceased herself. Therefore, his evidence is not much helpful either to the prosecution or to the defence. 10. PW-12 Dr. Sanjay Watode had conducted the postmortem examination on both dead bodies. But, it would be a hearsay evidence as he himself had not heard it and it was told by his daughter in law and not by the deceased herself. Therefore, his evidence is not much helpful either to the prosecution or to the defence. 10. PW-12 Dr. Sanjay Watode had conducted the postmortem examination on both dead bodies. He has recorded that, Seema had suffered four stab injuries of the size around 3cm x 1cm and of the depth about 7cm to 9cm. Those stab injuries were on the chest and on the abdomen One stab injury was on the chest, two stab injuries were on the abdomen and one stab injury was on the left thigh. There was one incised wound of 4cm x 1cm x 1cm on the left forearm. There was another incised wound on the left wrist joint and there was one abrasion. The cause of death was mentioned as ‘Death due to haemorrhagic shock with multiple stab injuries’. All the stab injuries were serious in nature and were sufficient to cause death. The postmorem of the other victim Rajendra Rane showed that he had suffered four stab wounds. There were stab injuries on the chest. One stab wound was on the junction of the chest and abdomen and one more stab wound was on the back. Those stab injuries were deep. There were contusions and abrasions on the abdomen and forearm. In all, he had suffered nine injuries. The cause of death was ‘Death due to haemorrhagic shock with multiple stab injuries on chest, back and abdomen’. There is hardly any dispute about the nature of injuries and cause of death. Postmortem notes are produced on record at Exhibit-49 and 50. 11. PW-3 Ranjana Shrivastav was a panch in whose presence Seema’s clothes were seized. PW-4 Umesh Raut was a panch for inquest panchanama in respect of Rajendra. The panchanama is produced on record at Exhibit-23. 12. PW-6 Rahul Wankhede was a pancha in whose presence the blood stained knife was seized at the police station from the hands of the Appellant. The seizure panchanama is produced on record at Exhibit-28. The description of the knife was that, it had 21cm long blade with 11cm long wooden handle. The width of the blade of the knife was 3.5cm. The said panchanama was carried out between 7:20p.m. to 8:00p.m. on 07.01.2013. 13. The seizure panchanama is produced on record at Exhibit-28. The description of the knife was that, it had 21cm long blade with 11cm long wooden handle. The width of the blade of the knife was 3.5cm. The said panchanama was carried out between 7:20p.m. to 8:00p.m. on 07.01.2013. 13. PW-7 Kapildev Kamble was a pancha for spot panchanama which is produced on record at Exhibit-30. The panchanama describes the seizure of various articles from the spot. Various articles viz. Mobile phone, watch, glass, one lock having blood stains were seized from the spot. 14. PW-11 Vikas Phulkar was a Nodal officer of the mobile service provider who produced the CDR. 15. PW-14 Hanumant Dekari was a pancha for seizure of the clothes of the Appellant. However, his evidence is not material because he has admitted in his cross-examination that the clothes of the Appellant were already kept on the table when he reached the police station and the police had told him that those were the clothes of the Appellant. Thus, this piece of evidence of seizure of the clothes and the chemical analysis report of those clothes; which purportedly were of the Appellant is not helpful to the prosecution because the clothes were already on the table when the pancha came to the police station. The manner of seizure of clothes of the Appellant is not free from doubt. 16. PW-5 Rashmi Rane was wife of the other victim Rajendra. She has deposed that, there was a meeting at their house. The Appellant and PW-1 had attended the meeting upto 3.30p.m. After the meeting they went out including her husband. In the night, she received a message that her husband Rajendra was admitted to the hospital. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she had not seen any dispute between Rajendra and the Appellant in respect of their business. 17. PW-10 Dr. K. P. Madhukar was examined to prove the injuries suffered by PW-1. He had examined PW-1 at Rajawadi Hospital on 07.01.2013. PW-1 had suffered muscle deep injury of the size 2 x 1 x 0.5cm over the flank. He had abrasions on both elbows and forehead. The injury certificate was produced on record at Exhibit-41. The case papers were produced on record at Exhibit-42. He had examined PW-1 at Rajawadi Hospital on 07.01.2013. PW-1 had suffered muscle deep injury of the size 2 x 1 x 0.5cm over the flank. He had abrasions on both elbows and forehead. The injury certificate was produced on record at Exhibit-41. The case papers were produced on record at Exhibit-42. In the cross-examination, he deposed that, PW-1 was not having any injury on the chest and back, and that the injuries were possible in an accident. The medical papers show that, it was an incised stab wound on the right flank. 18. The other witnesses are the police witnesses who had taken part in the investigation. PW-13 API Bajirao Naik had registered the F.I.R. He had carried out the inquest panchanama on the dead body of Seema. It is produced on record at Exhibit-52. He had also carried out inquest panchanama of the dead body of Rajendra. It is produced on record at Exhibit-23. He seized the clothes of the injured. He prepared the spot panchanama and seized the articles from the spot. In the cross-examination, he narrated that, he met PW-1 for the first time in that evening at 8:00p.m. 19. PW-15 API Ashok Pardhi had arrested the appellant in the police station. He seized the Appellant’s clothes. The knife was seized in his presence. 20. PW-16 API Kiran Pavase deposed that, at about 7:00p.m. the Appellant came to the police station with his blood stained clothes and knife. He has also deposed about the alleged confession made by the Appellant, but that part would be inadmissible. In the cross-examination, he deposed that, PW-1 reached the police station before the Appellant. 21. PW-17 P.I. Shivaji Gaware deposed that, he was on the patrolling duty at about 7:00p.m. on 07.01.2013. He was informed about the incident at Sangharsh Nagar. He was directed to go to the spot. He went to the spot and made enquiries. He carried out further investigation. He sent the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, procured the CDR etc. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. 22. The Defence witness head constable Shivaji Malgunde deposed that, he had taken the Appellant for medical treatment to Rajawadi Hospital. The appellant was having injury on his right hand. He carried out further investigation. He sent the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, procured the CDR etc. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. 22. The Defence witness head constable Shivaji Malgunde deposed that, he had taken the Appellant for medical treatment to Rajawadi Hospital. The appellant was having injury on his right hand. The medical papers in respect of the Appellant’s injury produced on record at Exhibit-74 show that he had suffered two CLWs near right little finger and ring finger, one incised wound on the palm and abrasions on the left little finger. This is the evidence in this case. 23. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case if taken on its face value as is deposed by PW-1 is simply unbelievable. She submitted that, if, as per the prosecution case, the Appellant was angry because of the alleged affair between PW-1 and the Appellant’s wife, naturally, PW-1 should have been the main target. But, instead, PW-1 had escaped without any serious injury and instead, Rajendra who had nothing to do with the dispute was assaulted and murdered. She, therefore, submitted that, it was not possible that the Appellant would leave PW-1 and assault Rajendra instead, who had nothing to do with the dispute. She further submitted that the omissions from PW-1’s police statement which are brought out in the cross- examination show that PW-1’s version about Appellant inviting him to his house for tea etc. is false. This improvement is made to justify PW-1’s presence in the Appellant’s house. The conduct of PW-1 is unnatural. When he rushed outside the house, first he would have sought help from the neighbours, but instead, according to PW-1, he rushed to the police station. She further submitted that, the story, that the Appellant himself gave PW-1 the key of the lock because of which the Appellant could escape, is unbelievable. She submitted that the other circumstantial evidence against the Appellant is full of doubt. The Appellant’s clothes were already on the table when the panchas had seen it. Therefore, this evidence loses its importance. 24. Learned counsel specifically relied on the evidence of PW-8 Leena i.e. the Appellant’s daughter. She submitted that the said evidence runs contrary to the prosecution case and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The Appellant’s clothes were already on the table when the panchas had seen it. Therefore, this evidence loses its importance. 24. Learned counsel specifically relied on the evidence of PW-8 Leena i.e. the Appellant’s daughter. She submitted that the said evidence runs contrary to the prosecution case and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. She submitted that, in that circumstance, benefit of doubt be given to the Appellant. 25. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that, PW-1’s injuries were not self inflicted. Those injuries were unexplained by the appellant. On the other hand, the injuries on the hand of the Appellant were possible when the Appellant had stabbed both the victims. He submitted that, presence of PW-1, as well as, the Appellant inside the house is not denied by the defence. In that case, it was important for the appellant to have discharged the burden U/s.106 of the EVIDENCE ACT to explain as to how the incident had taken place. Instead, the Appellant has not taken any specific defence in his examination U/s.313 of the Cr.p.c. and the defence taken in the form of suggestions is hardly acceptable. He submitted that, PW-1’s version about the meeting till afternoon and thereafter all of them going to the Appellant’s house is supported by the evidence of Rajendra’s wife; and more importantly, through the CDR which is produced on record. He submitted that, the record shows that the mobile phone number of the Appellant was 9930639215. The mobile phone number of the Appellant’s wife was 8691816930 and the mobile phone number of PW-1 was 9029009646. Learned APP submitted that the CDR shows that PW-1 had made those phone calls and the Appellant had returned his phone call at exactly the same time as it was described by PW-1. This specifically, not only corroborates the version of PW-1, but it destroys the false defence taken by the appellant that, PW-1 himself came to the house of the Appellant deliberately when the Appellant was not in the house and that he was having illicit relations with the Appellant’s wife. He submitted that, it was a preplanned, premeditated murder committed with full prepration. He further submitted that PW-1 was allowed to escape because the Appellant wanted to shift the blame of murder on PW-1. 26. We have considered these submissions. The case is based on the evidence of the injured eye witness PW-1. He submitted that, it was a preplanned, premeditated murder committed with full prepration. He further submitted that PW-1 was allowed to escape because the Appellant wanted to shift the blame of murder on PW-1. 26. We have considered these submissions. The case is based on the evidence of the injured eye witness PW-1. Therefore, his evidence will have to be scrutinized carefully. Though, the burden on the defence was not as heavy as on the prosecution, the Appellant’s version will also have to be taken into consideration. It is undisputed by both the sides that, when the incident took place, four persons were present inside the house and the house was closed from inside. They were, the two victims, PW-1 and the Appellant. Out of them, both the victims are dead. Therefore, it is only PW-1 and the Appellant who could tell the truth as to how the incident had taken place. In that connection, the Appellant had taken the defence; firstly of total denial and through suggestions it was suggested to PW-1 that, he had come to the Appellant’s house deliberately when the Appellant was not in the house. He had sent the children out and when the Appellant and Rajendra reached the house, he assaulted Rajendra and the Appellant’s wife. As against that, PW-1’s version is that the Appellant himself invited PW-1 to his house to sort out his grievance that PW-1 was having relations with the Appellant’s wife. PW-1’s version to that extent is definitely supported by CDR which shows that there were calls exchanged between the parties. At about 4:15p.m. the Appellant had called PW-1. There was a conversation for 22 seconds. Aftat that, again the appellant called PW-1 at 4:40p.m. The conversation was for 80 seconds. At 5:01p.m. PW-1 called the Appellant and the conversation was for 50 seconds. Then at around 5:28p.m. the Appellant called PW-1 and the conversation was for 61 seconds. Again at 5:52p.m. the Appellant called PW-1 and the conversation was for 173 seconds. At about 6:11p.m. PW-1 called the Appellant and the conversation was lasted for 14 seconds. All these phone calls, support PW-1’s version as to how he travelled to the Appellant’s house at the appellant’s instance. He had taken Rajendra with him. They had stopped at the bus stop and then the Appellant had joined them. At about 6:11p.m. PW-1 called the Appellant and the conversation was lasted for 14 seconds. All these phone calls, support PW-1’s version as to how he travelled to the Appellant’s house at the appellant’s instance. He had taken Rajendra with him. They had stopped at the bus stop and then the Appellant had joined them. After that, all of them went to the Appellant’s house and then this incident had taken place. Thus, there is strong corroboration to this part of the version of PW-1. As against that, the Appellant’s version that, PW-1 had gone to his house uninvited when the Appellant was not in the house, stands falsified by this CDR. In that context, even the version given by PW-8 i.e. the Appellant’s daughter is falsified because of these calls. She had tried to save her father by putting the blame on her own mother and PW-1. 27. As far as motive part is concerned, the Appellant had strong motive to assault his own wife because he was entertaining serious doubt that PW-1 was having illicit relations with his wife. On the other hand, PW-1 had no motive to assault Seema. Even assuming that PW-1 was found with the Appellant’s wife, that was no reason for PW-1 to assault the wife of the Appellant. The natural conduct was to save himself or to assault the appellant. Therefore, PW-1 had no motive, whatsoever, to assault Seema. 28. In the entire incident, it is quite clear that Rajendra was an unfortunate victim caught in the dispute between the husband and wife at a wrong time. There was no reason for him to be present in the house at that time; except that it was his misfortune. He was present at the wrong place at the wrong time. According to PW-1, he had taken Rajendra with him when he was going to the house of the Appellant. Rajendra himself was not individually invited by the Appellant to his house. Rajendra just happened to accompany PW-1 to the Appellant’s house. According to PW-1, after Seema was assaulted, the appellant gave knife blows on the person of Rajendra. 29. After this assault, according to PW-1, the Appellant allowed PW-1 to go away. After the incident, even as per the defence, the Appellant, as well as, PW-1 came out and went to the police station one after other. According to PW-1, after Seema was assaulted, the appellant gave knife blows on the person of Rajendra. 29. After this assault, according to PW-1, the Appellant allowed PW-1 to go away. After the incident, even as per the defence, the Appellant, as well as, PW-1 came out and went to the police station one after other. The Appellant and PW-1, as mentioned earlier, are the only persons who could narrate the incident. PW-1 has described the incident. On the other hand, the Appellant has not discharged his burden U/s.106 of the EVIDENCE ACT about the facts which were within his exclusive knowledge. He has committed this offence with premeditation and preparation. 30. The C.A. report shows that, all the clothes, of the victims, the appellant and PW-1 were stained with human blood. The knife was also stained with human blood. Even if the seizure of clothes of the Appellant is left out, it is undisputed that all the four were inside the house. There was blood all around and, therefore, finding blood on the clothes of all of them was not unusual. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of the injured eye witness PW-1. We find that his evidence is trustworthy and inspires confidence. 31. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. 32. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. With the dismissal of the Appeal, the interim application is also disposed of.