1. This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was tried for offence of murder and is convicted of said charge. He is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, was that :-

(a) The deceased Naresh Mankar was an agricultural labourer and always used to accompany the accused for such work;

(b) About 8 days prior to the incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused over the transaction of money and since then they were not in good books with each other;

(c) On 29/3/1996, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased along with some others was in a square near the school at village Jatanzari, when the accused came and threatened the deceased to kill him before Shigma festival;

(d) The accused was however pacified and then he went away;

(e) Within a short time thereafter, the accused returned with a knife and suddenly started assaulting the deceased with that knife as a result of which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on various parts of his body and he fell down after which the accused ran away;

(f) The deceased died on 1/3/1996.

3. The oral report lodged by P.W.-1 Raju Mankar, the brother of the deceased was recorded by P.S.I. Chandu Kelzarkar (P.W.-13), who registered the offence. P.W.-11, P.S.I. Shivaji Bachate drew the Inquest Panchanama and P.W.-12, P.S.I. Madhukar Mahatale carried out further investigation which culminated into the charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. That gave rise to the said Sessions Trial No. 292 of 1996.

4. Besides the witnesses mentioned in paragraph 3 above, the prosecution examined other witnesses who are :- P.W.-2 Ganpat Mankar, P.W.-3 Nilkant Dongre, P.W.-4 Chandranbhan Rangari, P.W.-6 Ramrao Sawarkar, who are all eye witnesses; P.W.-5 Bandu Sonone and P.W.-7 Govindrao Mankar are part eye-witnesses; and P.W.-8 Suresh Sawarkar, P.W.-9 Dhanrak Bharasakhare and P.W.-10 Vasudeo Bharasakhare, who are the panch witnesses.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has held thus :-

(a) The inquest panchanama (Exh.42) and the post mortem examination report (Exh.17) prove that the deceased died homicidal death;

(b) The evidence of eye-witnesses namely P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 is free from infirmities and is not shaken in cross-examination and there are no material contradictions or omissions in their evidence;

(c) The recovery of the weapon of assault i.e. knife at the instance of the accused and the detection of blood of group ‘B’ which is of the deceased on that knife is important circumstantial evidence which supports the testimonies of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.

(d) The circumstantial evidence of the detection of blood of group ‘B’ on the clothes of the accused also supports the evidence of said eye-witnesses;

(e) The evidence of P.W.-4, in his cross-examination indirectly supports the testimonies of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.

(f) The evidence on record proves the charge of murder against the accused.

6. Heard the learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga for the accused and learned A.P.P. Shri R. S. Nayak for the State.

7. Perused the entire record and proceedings.

8. The post-mortem examination report pertaining to the deceased was directly taken on record as Exh.17, without concerned doctor’s evidence because the same was admitted by the accused by making an endorsement as such on the application filed by the learned A.P.P. under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

9. The learned trial Judge relied upon Shaikh Fardi Hussinsab Vs. The State of Maharashtra- 1983 Cri. L.J. 487, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that Section 294 of Cr. P.C. applies to every document whose genuineness is not disputed and that post-mortem report whose genuineness is not disputed is admissible in evidence without doctor’s evidence.

10. Learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga has not cited any decision contrary to