Judge has convicted and sentenced the appenant as aforemenn'oned and thereby committed illegality. 8. Prosecution case in brief is that on the fateful day of 20.12.1987, at about 8.45 p.m., the appellant was quarreling with some persons. The deceased-Dhaniram came to the spot and told the appellant that he is going to lodge the report against him. On this, the appellant opposed and went to his house and come back with a buttondar knife and assaulted over the chest of the deceased. The deceased fell down, thereafter the appellant hed away hom the spot. Ram Kumar (PW-1) took the deceased to Police Station and thereafter to Hospital. While the deceased] injured was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. Ram Kumar (PW- 1) lodged the First Information Report vide Ex. P/l. Merg intimation was recorded Vide Ex. P/ll. The Investigating Ofhcer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning‘the witnesses vide Ex. P/ 12, inquest over the body of the deceased was pmpared vide Ex.P/ 13. The dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Bilaspur vide- Ex. P/8. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (PW-3) and found following injuries : 1. Penetrating wound of 1” x 3/4” x 5" over the chest below nipple. 11 Penetrating wound of 1" x 1/ 2" x 3" below the right auxiliary wall. 111 Incised wound of3/ 4" x 1/ 2" x 1" over the scrotum. iv. lncised wound over left lung of 3/ 4" x 1 / 2" x 1 / 2". The Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock as a result of haemon‘hage. Plain Soil and blood stained soil was recovered fmm the spot vide Ex. P/ 4. Clotted blood was recovered from the Rickshaw vide Ex. P/S. Blood stained chappal was seized vide EXP/6. The appellant was taken into custody on 21. 12. 1987. 'f‘ik" He made disclosure statement of buttondar knife and lungi vide EXP/7. Blood stained buttondar knife was seized at the instance of the aCcused/ appellant vide EXP/2. Blood stained lungi Was also seized at the instance of the accused/appellant vide Ex. P/3. Sealed clothes of the deceased after autopsy were seized vide EX.P/ 14. The appellant was sent for medical examination to Dr. P.K. Shrivastava (PW-3), who found injuries over the body of the accused/appellant. Spot map was prepared vide EX.P/ 17. Statements of the wimesses were recorded under Secn'on 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Code”). 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who in tum, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur from Where, I the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. 5: r In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code, in which, he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After att‘ording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 7. We have heard Shri Abhay 'I‘iwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State, perused the judgment anda‘ecord of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that according to the case of prosecution, Rami Kum‘ar (PW—l) and Dasoda Bai (PW-2) have seen the incident, but their statements are full of contradicu'ons and omissions. According to Ram Knmar (PW—1); who is the son of the deceased—Dham'ram, the accused] appellant has caused single injuly to his father, but the evidence of Dasoda Bai (PW-2) shows that the appenmit has caused 2 injuries to the deceased. Autopsy report EXP/9 reveals that 3 injuries wem found over the body of the deceased. It shows that there was no consistency relating to causing injury by the accused/appellant and injuiy found over the body of the deceased. Learned counsel fulther argued that even according to the case of prosecution, the appeuant has not caused any injury to the deceased with intent to cause his death and the appellant has caused injmy with intent to object and stop him from going to Police Station for lodging the report against him. Therefoxe, if the evidence of the prosecution is admitted to be true, the same is not sumcient for drawing an inference that the appenant has committed murder of the deceased. 9, On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed these arguments and submitted that evidence of Ram Kumar (PW- 1) and Dasoda Bai (PW-2) has categorically supported the case of prosecution. Both the witnesses ale eye Witnesses. Their evidence inspires conhdence of the Court, it is trustworthy and safe to rely for drawing an inference that the appellant was the person, who has caused repeated injuries over the chest of the deceased and thereby caused the death of the deceased. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. In the present case, homicidal death of the deceased as a result of fatal injury, which was ante mortem has not been «an (g) substanh'ally disputsd by the accused/appenant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. P.K.Shn’vastava (PW-3) and autopsy report Ex. P/ 9, which revealed that 3 injuries were found over the body of the deceased and the injury found over the chest, penetrating to left lung, was fatal and homicidal in nature. 12. As regards complicity of the accused/appellant in crime in question is concerned, Ram Kumar (PW— 1), son of the deceased has specidcally deposed that at the time of incident, the accused] appellant was quarre‘lling with his aunt-Dasoda Bai (PW- 2) and some other persons. Then his father came and told that he will go to Police Station and lodged the report. On which, the accused/appellant objected and threatened his father that if he/ will go to Police Station and lodged report that will not be good for him. Despite this, his father went and lodged the report then the ,quarrel took place. His father pushed the appellant and the appellant fell down, thereafter, the appellant went inside his house and come back with a knife and assaulted his father. The deceased fell down. Then they took the deceased to Police Station and lodged the report Ex. P/l and thereafter, they took the deceased to Hospital. Dasoda Bai (PW-2) has corroborated the evidence of Ram Kumar (PW- 1) and has specihcally deposed that the appellant has caused 2 injuries by knife over the chest of the deceased. 7‘' 13. Defence has cross examined those witnesses at length, but both the witnesses have specihcally stated that the appellant was the person, who had caused the injury to the deceased by knife after taking it from his house. Doctor has also noticed the 31d injury over the scrotum of the deceased which was fatal. It appears that during the course of scuttlehetween the appeltant and the deceased, this 3rd injury has been caused to the deceased. $$ The injury found over the chest of the deceased has been corroborated by the evidence of Dasoda Bai (PW-2) and one injury has‘been corroborated by the evidence of Ram Kumar (PW—1). Both the witnesses are relative Witnesses, but defence has not been able to elicit anything in their cross examination to discredit their testimony. Their evidence inspires conhdence and has been substantially corroborated by the medical evidence. 14. [As regaids the question of motive is concerned, in case of direct evidence it loses its importance, even otherwise motive aids only in criminality. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body edected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. r 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that after causing injury, the appellant was holding the knife and thereafter *fled away npm the spot, which shows that he has not caused the injury with intent to cause the death of the deceased, but only with a View to object the deceased hom going to lodge the report in Police Station, the appellant has caused the injury and intention may be inferred on the basis of injury. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter ‘of Shanmugam alias Kulamlaivelu V. state of Tamil Nada, reported in 2003 CRLL.J. 418, in which, the Apex Court has held that the injury found over the gall bladder was not explained by the Doctor that whether the injury of gall bladder would a result of death or not and on the basis of evidence, the accused has been convicted under Section 304 Part I ofthe IPC. 16. In the present case, hrstly, the appellant was quarrelling with the deceased on account of playing the game of gambling. The appellant abused to Dasoda Bai (PW72)\and while the deceased was going to Police Station to lodge the report, he went inside his ”highr—J . 2"?“-; @ house and come back with a buttondar knife and caused 2 injuries over the chest of Dhaniram, resulting into puncture of his lungs. It shows glave intenh‘on of the appellant for causing death of the deceased by dangerous weapon i.e. knife. The caseof Shanmugam (supra) is distinguishable on the ground of fact. In the present case, when the appellant went inside to the house, there was no occasion for taking knife fmm his house and causing fatal injuries to the deceased. 17. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC. 18. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we ale of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the I IPC is based on legal and clinching evidence, sustainable under law. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not nnd any illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned. The appeal is devoid of merits. The same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. “\X # H Sd/- RoL. Sd/— t Jhanwar . Judge \K sunita T.P. Sharma (X W