A.M. Badar, J.

1. By this appeal, appellant/convicted accused is challenging the judgment and order of his conviction passed on 28th December 2011 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2011 by the learned 3rd Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. The appellant/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 506(II) and 307 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 509 of the IPC, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days; for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of the IPC, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days; and for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the appellant/accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 1 month. He was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 504 of the IPC and under Section 135 read with Section 37(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. Substantive sentences imposed on the appellant/accused were directed to run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as the accused.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. She vehemently argued that evidence of prosecution and particularly that of PW7 Dr.Shams Tabrez does not show that injured Pravin Padwal had suffered serious injuries which were ordinarily sufficient to cause death of a human being. The learned counsel argued that, though the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC does not require causing of even hurt, but intention of the accused is required to be established. Such intention, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused can be gathered from the nature of weapon used, nature of injury caused as well as opportunities for the accused for causing injuries. The learned counsel argued that in the case in hand, though according to the prosecution case, the accused was holding rampuri knife having blade of length of 5 inches, injury allegedly caused to PW3 Pravin Padwal is of size 2 cm x 2 cm x peritoneal deep. That, though the accused was having tons of opportunities to inflict several blows of knife, he had inflicted only one blow, and as such, it cannot be said that the accused had assaulted PW3 Pravin with such intention and knowledge, and in such circumstances, that if by that act, he had caused death of PW3 Pravin, then, he would have been guilty of murder. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused further argued that offence punishable under Section 509 of the IPC is also not made out by the prosecution as the utterances allegedly made by the accused were not even heard by PW2 Priyanka Raorane. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, evidence of the prosecution is suffering from several contradictions and the same is not consistent. Evidence of PW1 Akshay is at variance with evidence of PW5 Prakash Ramugade, the Investigating Officer, in respect of the time when Akshay was present at the spot. Therefore, in every probability, PW1 Akshay is deposing falsely to implicate accused in the crime in question. The learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident as though according to the prosecution case, the accused has caused injury by means of knife, medical papers show that PW3 Pravin had suffered contused lacerated wound. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant/accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in this case, and therefore, the appeal needs to be allowed.

3. I have also heard the learned APP appearing for the respondent/State. He vehemently argued that the accused is identified by the prosecution witnesses and evidence of PW3 Pravin cannot be jettisoned because bein