S.M. MODAK, J.

1. The appellant sole accused is convicted of committing the murder of one Shailesh Balkrishna Junghare. He was assaulted with the help of knife on 23/09/2014 at about 7.15 p.m. in front of house of Rajesh Manohar Rendke. On the complaint of one Lukesh Pawar, Kotwali Police Station, Nagpur initially registered an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Deceased Shailesh was first taken to the hospital of Dr. Patil and he died there later on. Police converted the offence to Section 302 of IPC.

2. This appellant was named in the First Information Report. He was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, convicted him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- on 30/06/2016.

3. We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. A.R. Kulkarni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. They have taken us through the evidence. The emphasis of the appellant is entirely on reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to a lesser imprisonment. There is submission to convert the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 of IPC. The defence has, however, opposed it.

MOTIVE

4. On going through the evidence, we find that there are six eye-witnesses. In such cases, motive does not play any important role. Though no motive was attributed, indirectly anger of the family members of the appellant towards the family of deceased was attributed. The appellant was having a son by name Jitendra. He had committed suicide by poisoning. One Shrutika Junghare is the daughter of brother of deceased Shailesh. They used to reside at Nashik. Occasionally, Shrutika used to visit the house of her deceased uncle at Nagpur. Shrutika and Jitendra came in contact with each other and Jitendra used to visit the house of the deceased. Deceased's family members were not comfortable. It was brought to the notice of the appellant-accused. Family members of the appellant blamed the family members of the deceased for the act of commission of suicide by Jitendra.

5. On reading cross-examination of the witnesses, defence has suggested dispute between deceased Shailesh on one hand and Hiraman Nerkar and Hirabai Ugle on the other hand. It was on account of construction of house of the deceased. Deceased was constructing his new house. It is not in dispute that it was on the verge of completion. Daughter Anushka [PW-7] and wife Reena [PW-8] have admitted about this dispute and even filing of police complaint by deceased (admitted by PW-8 Reena).

EVIDENCE

6. On going through the evidence of seven eye-witnesses, we find that only PW-4 Rafiq Sheikh, PW-7 Anushka (daughter) and PW-6 Rajesh Randke have supported the assault by the appellant on the deceased. When the deceased visited his new house on 23/09/2014, the appellant assaulted him with the help of knife. There is some variance about the exact place of assault, that is to say the place where the deceased was putting a lock on the door of the house or the spot where he was putting a lock to the compound gate of the house.

POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION

7. When we have gone through the postmortem examination report, we find four injuries mentioned in Column No.17. There are three wounds, one is stab injury, second is surgical stab intervention and third is incised wound, whereas there was one contused abrasion on forehead. These three wounds are on chest, abdomen and forehead. Doctor carrying out postmortem was not examined, probably for the reason that the defence has admitted the report. Final cause of death is 'stab injury to heart'. There was also stab wound to valves and cartilages and it is corresponding to external stab wound over front of chest on left side. Neither the defence has disputed about homicidal death nor there is any other contrary material. There is every reason to uphold the opinion of the trial Court about homicidal death.

WEAPON

8. Even, there is a reas