B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

The appellant Ravi @ Galya Ramchandra Wankhede assails the judgment and order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Trial Case No. 195 of 2007 punishing him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for one year. For the offence under Section 324, he has to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months.

2. Accused No. 2 by name Ravi @ Ravindra @ Gondya Shivdas Dhoke is acquitted by the trial Court for both the offences.

3. Story of prosecution is, on 28.08.2007 at about 8.30 PM, deceased victim Ramesh Jaiswal was chit chating with PW2 informant Mahendra and PW3 Ashok Lonkar near Gajanan Maharaj temple. The appellant and acquitted accused arrived there. The appellant claimed that Mahendra was an informer of police. Both accused persons gave fist blows to Mahendra. Ramesh Jaiswal and Ashok Lonkar intervened. The appellant gave blows of knife to Mahendra Gawai and Ashok Lonkar. He delivered blow of knife just below the testicles of victim Ramesh, who fell down. Both accused persons thereafter ran away. Mahendra and Ashok rushed to Police Station and called police. The wife of Ramesh (PW6) Durgabai also reached there. Ramesh Jaiswal told his wife that the appellant Ravi Wankhede gave blows of knife to him, Mahendra Gawai and Ashok Lonkar. The police took the victim Ramesh to the hospital where he was declared dead. The report was lodged by the informant Mahendra and cognizance was taken under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Homicidal death of Ramesh Jaiswal is not in dispute before us.

5. Ms. Haidari, learned counsel has submitted that both the injured persons viz. PW2 and PW3 are not coming out with true and correct version. They are hiding genesis of crime. Though in deposition they claimed that they were injured because of knife blows, the Doctor who has examined them found injuries caused by hard and blunt object. This evidence of Doctor Talat Ahamed (PW8), therefore, ought to have been taken as conclusive evidence to discredit eye witnesses and to exonerate the appellant. She further submits that according to these witnesses only single blow was given but in post mortem report of PW7, Dr. Kishor Deshmukh, there are two injuries on the body of Ramesh. This second injury is not explained. It is, therefore, apparent that prosecution is not in a position to approach the Court with complete and true story.

6. She states that the incident has taken place at 8.30 PM on 28.08.2007 and police station is just half a kilometer away. PW2 and PW3 immediately ran to police station. Still there medical examination is carried out after 9.40 PM. Not only this but Station diary entry in police station has been taken at 22.10 PM. There is, thus delay and this delay is on account of manipulations by the so called eye witnesses. She submits that PW6 Durgabai learns about attack on Ramesh at her residence and comes towards temple. She finds her husband lying on the ground. She is the last person to reach Ramesh. Thereafter leaving Ramesh at spot, she comes to Police Station and comes back with police, PW2 and PW3 to the spot. PW2 and PW3 do not depose that PW6 came back with them to the spot. After coming to spot, police carried everybody including injured Ramesh first to Police Station and thereafter to hospital. Again no station diary entry has been taken about visit to spot and thereafter coming back to Police Station. She has invited our attention to map of spot at Exh. 103 to demonstrate that had Ramesh received medical attendance immediately, he could have survived. According to her, spot panchnama does not reflect correct position as witness to it does not speak of blood trail.

7. According to her, the alleged seizure of weapo