mother-in-law with kitchen knife in the morning. She submitted that PW-2 Avinash in the cross-examination has given admission that there were injuries caused to the stomach and neck of the accused and these injuries were caused when the appellant/accused was trying to save his wife and resisted the attack of Vinay. She further argued that though the fact of injuries on the person of the accused was admitted by the prosecution witness, the prosecution neither produced his injury certificate nor the medical papers of the treatment given to the accused for his injuries. She further argued that there is no recovery of weapon, i.e., knife (Article 1). This article is not shown to anybody. PW-6 Dr. Raju Dhondiram Lavangare has stated that the injuries caused to the deceased is probable due to this knife (Article 1). She argued that there is no proper opinion expressed by the doctor. The recovery of knife is doubtful, as it was found at the time of spot panchnama. She submitted that the investigation is doubtful. She further submitted that the condition of the deceased was very delicate when she was assaulted. The doctor had opined that due to such injury, the death was instantaneous, however, as per the case of the prosecution, the injury was inflicted at around 8.30 a.m., however, in the postmortem notes, which is marked as Exhibit 27, the time of death is shown as 11 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. As per the medical report, the learned counsel submitted that in the injury of throat, her artery was cut. There must have been huge flow of blood and due to blood loss, it was not
