JUDGMENT S.B. Sen, J. l. In Choti Guwal Toli in Indore, near the Public Motor Stand there is a hotel known as New Bashir Alam Hotel. One Taslim, victim of this incident was an employee in the said concern. Babu alias Bulbul was also an employee there at the relevant time. As the hotel is in a busy locality, it is open from the very early morning. 2. On 17-7-67, these two employees of the hotel had a quarrel amongst themselves, though not of a very serious type but was sufficient enough for the employer to ask Babu to remain out and keep Taslim in, possibly either for a shelter or to pacify the two heated young men. A few minutes later, say 15 or 20 minutes, Taslim went out only to receive a murderous attack with a knife by Babu not far away from the hotel. 3. The cries of Taslim attracted P.W.1 Bashir and P.W.2 Timma. They saw Babu with a knife and Taslim with injury on his chest lying in a pool of blood just on the well. Bashir Ahmad, Timma and Girish Chandra who arrived there, some how over powered Babu and took him to the Police and got him arrested. In the mean time however, Taslim was taken in that condition to the hospital. F.I. Report was lodged at the Police Station. Police seized the knife, shoe and some wearing apparel. Taslim died on the way to the M.Y. Hospital. 4. Dr. Mohandas P.W.4 made the postmortem examination and found a stab wound on the chest of Taslim. According to him Taslim died as a result of shock due to hemorrhage resulting from the injury on his person. According to him the injury was caused by sharp and pointed weapon and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 5. The prosecution on the above facts challaned Babu alias Bulbul a young man of 30. After trial he has been found guilty under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court Babu also filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. This judgment will dispose of both the Death Reference as well as the appeal. 6. The defence of Babu is denial that he has caused any stab wound on the chest of the deceased. This judgment will dispose of both the Death Reference as well as the appeal. 6. The defence of Babu is denial that he has caused any stab wound on the chest of the deceased. The prosecution witness beat him on suspicion and falsely implicated him due to enmity. The trial Judge has not accepted this defence and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 7. There is no witness who bas seen the actual thrusting of the knife by the accused in the chest of Taslim. But there is enough evidence which would indicate that it was Babu who had caused the injury which resulted in the death of Taslim. 8. P.W.1 Mohammad Bashir, a Riksha driver is the main witness. He had been plying his Rickshaw at night and had kept it in the stand in front of the Motor Service Station. It was about 4-30-5 a.m. that he had gone to the hotel Bashir Alam to take tea. As soon as he came out, he saw Taslim and Babu quarrelling with each other. He pacified them. When he was going to his rickshaw, he heard the cries saying 'save me'. The voice was of Taslim. He ran immediately in the direction of the voice. He found Babu sitting on Taslim. Taslim's body was half in the inner part of the well and half out side. He saw Babu was over him with an open knife with the brass handle in his hand. He ran and caught hold of Babu from behind and gave a few slaps. At this Taslim tried to get up. He moved a step or two and fell down. He saw Taslim with blood on his person. As he was trying to hold Babu, the latter made an attempt to assault him. By that time his friend Timma P.W.2 came on the spot and gave a blow with a stick on the hand of Babu and his knife fell down. This witness then caught hold of Babu and did not allow him to go. Though he tried to escape but he was given a blow with a stick. Then some persons gathered on the spot and caught hold of Babu. He took Taslim to the hospital Ramkishor was with him. Rickshaw was driven by Timma. On the gate of M.Y. Hospital Taslim died. Though he tried to escape but he was given a blow with a stick. Then some persons gathered on the spot and caught hold of Babu. He took Taslim to the hospital Ramkishor was with him. Rickshaw was driven by Timma. On the gate of M.Y. Hospital Taslim died. His body was left at the hospital and he then came on the spot. He saw police already there. The police seized shoe Art A, knife Art. Band also a stick which Timma had used. 9. Bashir's evidence has been challenged on several grounds, none of which individually or all the grounds taken together, according to us are sufficient to discredit his testimony. Demand of four annas from the witness is not sufficiently provocative to involve a person for murder, nor even the demand of arrears of about Rs. 20/-, even if true, is enough for the purpose. It was his job to collect dues on behalf of the shop. If he was not there others would collect and make demands. There is no evidence to indicate that there was any serious quarrel for the same. 10. The "inherent improbability" (in the words of the counsel for the 'appellant) of the story given out by this witness and the absence of blood stains on the clothes of the appellant have also been pointed to discredit his testimony. It is very difficult to accept the story as inherently improbable while the body was at the steps, part of it can be easily envisaged to have gone on the inner side leaving the other out side. The struggle which the victim was making could easily bring him to that position. It is possible to conceive an attempt to push inside the well-either after the stabbing of immediately before it. We do not find the story improbable. We are not prepared to disbelieve the witness to hold that he has been speaking from imagination. 11. An argument was advanced that there should have been blood on the trousers of the accused and the trousers should have been seized by the police when he was taken to the police station, in order to corroborate the story of his sitting on the chest after the stabbing. The blood should have been there in a large quantity. 12. We find from the statement of the investigating officer Mr. The blood should have been there in a large quantity. 12. We find from the statement of the investigating officer Mr. Tiwari P.W.13 that when the accused was prod used be seized the shin, shoe and did not seize the pant. The shirt had blood stains. The seizure memo is Ex. P/6. It speaks that the shirt was blood stained and a shoe of the left leg was seized. Possibly there was no blood on the pant or Pajama the accused was putting on. But the shirt had enough blood. It is not necessary while sitting on the chest of the deceased that there should be blood on his pant. We do not know the way the accused was putting on the shirt. Some times the shirt would cover the pant to a large extent and in that case the blood would only be on the shirt. Whatever that may be it is clear that there was enough evidence that the blood was on his garment. Therefore the argument that if he was sitting on the chest his pant should be stained with blood is no argument to discredit the testimony as the shirt had enough human blood. The Chemical analyser and the Serologist have reported that there were human blood stains on the shirt. We have also occasion to look to the shirt and we found it stained. Therefore this argument does not at all help the appellant and the argument that the story is inherently improbable also does not stand. 13. Another attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution story should be discarded as given out by Bashir P.W.1, as other witnesses who were likely to be there have not been examined. He is very particular about the presence of one Ramkishor whose presence has been spoken to by Bashir himself. The investigating officer however has stated that he had no opportunity to examine Ramkishor. We think this should suffice. If a witness has not been examined during the course of investigation his testimony before the Court loses its importance. If the Court have examined him, then there could have been an argument that his testimony should be discarded as he had not been examined by the Police. The same argument therefore can be advanced whether he is examined or not. 14. If the Court have examined him, then there could have been an argument that his testimony should be discarded as he had not been examined by the Police. The same argument therefore can be advanced whether he is examined or not. 14. The law does not provide a number of witnesses to be examined in a particular case. One witness, if he is reliable, is sufficient to prove any fact. It is the quality that matters, not the quantity. In this connection reference may be made to a decision reported in Narayan Vs. State AIR 1959 SC 484 in which their lordships have observed that "it is not that the prosecution is bound to call all the witnesses who may have seen the occurrence and so duplicate the evidence. No doubt material witnesses have to be examined and in particular the witnesses who unfold the story. The test whether a witness is material in the case is not whether he may have given evidence in support of the defence, but the test is whether it is essential for unfolding of the narrative". 15. In the present case examination of Ramkishor would not bring out any thing new then what Basir has stated. If Bashir is believed there is no question of examination of Ramkishor. If defence thinks that he would have supported the accused, there was no bar for him to examine him as a defence witness. The reason for non-examination of Ramkishor is obvious. He was not even questioned during the investigation because the prosecution thought that Bashir's evidence was enough and the examination of Ramkishor was not necessary. What we are concerned with, whether his non-examination before the Court is such a circumstance that one should disbelieve the story given out by Basir. We have already seen that we have no reason to disbelieve the story given out by Bashir P.W.1. 16. The latest authority of the Supreme Court in this connection is Mosatali and others Vs. State AIR 1965 SC 202 . Though this case pertained to a number of accused persons and the observation related to the appreciation of evidence in respect of a number of accused, yet the observation which has been made in connection with the examination of a material witness on his non-examination is pertinent. State AIR 1965 SC 202 . Though this case pertained to a number of accused persons and the observation related to the appreciation of evidence in respect of a number of accused, yet the observation which has been made in connection with the examination of a material witness on his non-examination is pertinent. In this connection their lordships have observed: “It is undoubtedly the duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court all material evidence available to it which is necessary for unfolding its case; but it would be unsound to lay a general rule that every witness must be examined even though his evidence may not be very material or even it is known that he has been won over or terrorised. In such a case it is always open to the defence to examine such witnesses as their witnesses and the Court can also call such witnesses in the box in the interest of justice." 17. The present is not the case in which the allegation is that the witness has been won over. The prosecution thought that it was not necessary to examine Ramkishor. We therefore do not think any adverse inference can be drawn from his non-examination. 18. Similar observations also apply for non-examination of one Ramkishan, the other witness who is alleged to have been present on the spot. 19. We have already seen that there is no reason to disbelieve Bashir. We are aware that when the prosecution depends on the testimony of a single witness he should be above board. This applies in a case of direct evidence and when we have to consider an eye witness. But when the case depends on the circumstantial evidence, we have to see whether there are witnesses reliable to prove a particular circumstance. Bashir was not an eyewitness to the actual stabbing. What he saw was that the appellant had a knife in his hand and Taslim lying injured on his chest. There was no third person on the spot and the presence of the appellant in such a manner has not been explained at all by him. 20. To this circumstance we find support from the evidence of Timma P.W.2. He has stated that he was a rickshaw driver. He did not know either Babu or Taslim, but he knew Bashir. There was no third person on the spot and the presence of the appellant in such a manner has not been explained at all by him. 20. To this circumstance we find support from the evidence of Timma P.W.2. He has stated that he was a rickshaw driver. He did not know either Babu or Taslim, but he knew Bashir. He was just standing in front of the egg shop when he heard the cries 'save me'. On hearing this he ran towards the well behind the egg shop. This witness saw Babu running after Bashir. He found a stick lying there, picked it up and gave a blow on the hand which held the knife. The knife fell down and Bashir then caught hold of the accused. Taslim was lying there by the side of the well and blood was coming out from his person. This witness then ran to one Girishchandra who had a shop nearby and informed him about the murder. Girishchandra came and caught hold of Taslim. Later on Taslim was taken by Ramkishore and Bashir in a rickshaw and rickshaw was driven by this witness. He came back after leaving all the three at the hospital. 21. The only point on which the statement of Timma has been challenged is that he stated to the Police that he had given his stick to the police but in the Court he did not say so. This is a very minor contradiction not to be taken notice of Similarly the Police did seize the stick. Whether this witness pointed it out or not is not very material Timma P.W.2 gives out the chain as to what happened subsequent to the story given by Bashir. 22. The next witness in the chain is Girishchandra P.W.3. He lent support to what Timma has stated. At his hotel Timma informed him that some body has been killed, He came on the spot and found a boy with blood and Bashir was holding Babu, the appellant and he also found a knife lying by the side. He managed to send the injured to the hospital. He found one shoe of the accused with blood, on the spot. The accused wanted to put it on but this witness asked him not to do so. He tied the accused "with a rope. His one leg had a shoe on. He managed to send the injured to the hospital. He found one shoe of the accused with blood, on the spot. The accused wanted to put it on but this witness asked him not to do so. He tied the accused "with a rope. His one leg had a shoe on. He took the accused to the police station. This witness was not in a position to state on which leg the shoe was. A report was then made to the police station. 23. Thus we see that there is a corroboration in a chain from one witness to the other. It is a complete story if all the chains are taken together. An Attempt was made to discredit Bashir by pointing out a contradiction. He has stated in examination in chief that Timma had given a Lathi blow to the accused, whereas in cross-examination he has staled that he did not know who caused injuries to the accused. This was however explained by him in his cross examination when he says that Timma had given a Lathi blow but he did not know which part of the body it struck. This is not a serious contradiction to be taken notice of 24. The injuries on the person of the accused have been spoken to by Dr. Sanghi P.W.12. They are contusions and abrasions and an injury on the chest. The blows were given and be received the injuries for obvious reason that he was trying to behave in the same manner with Bashir having a knife in his hand and he has to be overpowered by giving blows. 25. There is also a corroborating circumstance to the story given out by the prosecution witnesses of a shoe found on the spot. It is significant to note that corresponding shoe was in the leg of the appellant while he was taken to the police station. 26. An argument was advanced that one should give equal importance to the statements in cross-examination. We have no doubt about the proposition and there can not be any quarrel on that score. What a witness states in cross examination is also the evidence of that witness of what he stated in examination in chief. 26. An argument was advanced that one should give equal importance to the statements in cross-examination. We have no doubt about the proposition and there can not be any quarrel on that score. What a witness states in cross examination is also the evidence of that witness of what he stated in examination in chief. We therefore need not quote the authorities cited on this point we have considered the statements of the witnesses both in examination in chief and in their cross-examination and we do not find any reason for disbelieving them. 27. It has been stated that no spot inspection has been made by the trial Court which was necessary. An application was made on 22-12-67 on the ground that there is some discrepancy regarding the spot in the statement of Panchnama P/5 and in the statement made by Bashir in the Court. Statement in the Panchnama is not evidence to be read in the Court unless it is put to the witness who has made it. Apart from this we do not find any relevancy in witnessing the spot. We have not been shown any valid ground that without the spot inspection we are not in a position to decide the matter or that if the spot is inspected the testimony of the witnesses who have described the incident would prove to be false. Therefore refusal to inspect the spot by the trial Court has not at all prejudiced the case of the accused. 28. Thus we see that the picture is clear. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses Bashir, Timma and Girish Chandra it is clear that it was the appellant who was seen with the knife in his hand and Taslim lying with injury on his chest and blood coming out. There was no third person present on the spot. The subsequent conduct of Babu is also significant. He tried to attack Bashir when in the beginning he attempted to catch hold of him. We have therefore no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellant Babu was responsible for the killing. We need not discuss the defence evidence at all D.W.1 Najir says nothing excepting that he did not see any thing at the relevant time. Such evidence is not worth the paper on which it is written. He even denied having seen Taslim injured. We need not discuss the defence evidence at all D.W.1 Najir says nothing excepting that he did not see any thing at the relevant time. Such evidence is not worth the paper on which it is written. He even denied having seen Taslim injured. The defence evidence is therefore worthless and not to be taken notice of. 29. Next question is what offence has been committed by the appellant. Dr. Mohandas has stated that the stab injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There was a previous enmity in the sense that there was some fight and the hotel keeper kept one inside and turned the other out. It was only 15-20 minutes afterwards that the incident took place. There was therefore undoubtedly a chasing or a sudden attack or both. 30. Question is whether from the circumstances given out by the prosecution there is a possibility of appellant stabbing Taslim under grave and sudden provocation. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the case comes under Exception 4 to section 300 IPC. Exception 4 comes into operation when it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 31. The learned counsel for the appellant relief on a case reported in AIR 1954 SC 652 (Chamru Vs. State) in which their lordships applied Exception 4 to section 300 IPC. 32. We have considered the matter thoroughly and we find that we are not in a position to bring the offence under any of the exceptions. The appellant has not shown how he happened to be there and how he caused the injury. He has simply denied that he had done any thing. We do not get any help from the only person who was present on the spot if there are only two persons present one is killed and the other is killer, it is the killer who has to explain the circumstances under which killing took place. He has not offered any explanation. The evidence on record does not at all show that the killing was done under grave and sudden provocation. The knife has been produced in the Court. It has an handle and it is 13” long and the blade is half of its length. He has not offered any explanation. The evidence on record does not at all show that the killing was done under grave and sudden provocation. The knife has been produced in the Court. It has an handle and it is 13” long and the blade is half of its length. In the case of the Supreme Court referred to above there was evidence of grave and sudden provocation and the weapon used was Lathi. In the instant case the weapon used is a dagger and even assuming that there was sudden fight, we do not think exception 4 will apply in this case. There is enough evidence on record of appellant's thrusting knife in the chest of the deceased. There is nothing on record to indicate that he had intended to cause a different injury. A man is always presumed to have intended the consequences of his act. In the absence of any other explanation or circumstance, it is clear that he intended to kill Taslim. Therefore this is an offence which clearly falls under section 302 IPC and the conviction of the appellant cannot be assailed. 33. The appellant has been sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. We feel that this is a case in which death sentence is not safe to be given. No doubt the appellant had caused this dastardly act but there was some provocation in the beginning. There had been some quarrel. Both were employees of the hotel Babu was injured in the fight that took place in the hotel and he was driven out. That might have given him provocation and be was finding out some opportunity to attack Taslim and when Taslim came out, he attacked him. The death sentence has to be given when the murder is for lust or greed for any other ulterior purpose. This killing took place on account of enmity and the immediate cause was the insult. Under these circumstances we think the cause of justice will be served if the appellant is given the lesser sentence. 34. We therefore do not accept the Death reference. We partly allow the appeal. The conviction of the appellant Babu alias Bulbul under section 302 IPC is maintained but instead of death sentence he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for life.