Judgment.- The accused, who was convicted and sentenced under sections 324 and 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, for voluntarily causing hurt by M.O.1 to P.W.1 and causing the death of Ganga Bai Ammal at, 9.00 p.m. on 19th May, 1975 at Tiruppapuliyur, is the appellant. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th May, 1975 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W.1 returned home and was taking food along with his children in his house. The deceased Ganga Bai, wife of P.W.1 was. sitting on the pial of the house and giving milk to the child. The accused came and stood in front of P.W.1’s house and abused the deceased. P.W.1, who was taking his meals inside, came out and questioned the accused as to why he was abusing the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that there was an altercation between P.W.1 and the accused and the accused stabbed P.W.1 with a pen-knife (M.O.1) on his left flank and left shoulder. On seeing this, the deceased shouted saying that her husband was innocent and he should be spread and if the accused wants to stab, he could stabher. The accused remarked by saying that he was looking for her also and so saying stabbed the deceased with M.O. 1 on her left clavicle just above the neck. After stabbing, the accused ran away with the penknife. P.W.2, who is a resident of the same street, witnessed the occurrence and he saw the stabbing of P.W.1 and also his wife the deceased, with M.O. 1 and accused running away from the scene of occurrence. 3. The husband of the deceased who is P.W.1 in this case, seeing the condition of his wife, took her in a cycle rickshaw to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and she was examined by the doctor, P.W.4, at 10.00 p.m. and he found her dead. P.W.4 also examined and attended to the injuries of P.W.1 which were said to have been caused by the accused with M.O.1. The doctor, while examining P.W.1, found the injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate, Exhibit P-4. According to the doctor, there were two injuries and he opined that the injuries mentioned in Exhibit P-4 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1. 4. The doctor, while examining P.W.1, found the injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate, Exhibit P-4. According to the doctor, there were two injuries and he opined that the injuries mentioned in Exhibit P-4 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1. 4. P.W.1, who is the husband of the deceased, later returned from the hospital to see his children and on the way he saw his sister and his mother. He took the children to his father-in-law’s house at Anaikuppam and after leaving them there, he went to the Tiruppapuliyur police station and gave a complaint, Exhibit P-1 to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.10. P.W.10 recorded Exhibit P-1 and registered a case under sections 302 and 324, Indian Penal Code, against the accused. He sent express reports to the higher authorities. 5. The Inspector of Police, P.W.12, on receipt of the report, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ganga Bai, and sent the dead body to P.W.5 for post-mortem examination. His inquest report is marked as Exhibit P-17. During inquest, he examined several witnesses. It is evident from Exhibit P-17 that the inquest was started at 7-00 a.m. and was completed at 9-45 a.m. on 20th May, 1975 at the hospital. 6. P.W.5, Dr. Saraswathi, who was the Woman Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Cuddalore, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Ganga Bai on 20th May, 1975 and found the following external injury. “An incised wound 1” long, spindle shaped gaping, oblique in direction, 1“above the medical one-third of the left clavicle. Blood was oozing from the wound.” The further details of the injury that P.W.5 has observed during autopsy are mentioned in Exhibit P-7 the post-mortem certificate issued by her. According to the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock to the brain and haemorrhage due to the injury sustained. She also opines that the external injury and its corresponding internal injury could have been caused by M.O. 1 and the said injuries are necessarily fatal. 7. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an rough sketch, Exhibit P-18. He seized M.O. 5 earth under Exhibit P-13 which was attested by P.W.7. He searched for the accused, but he could not succeed in arresting him. 7. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an rough sketch, Exhibit P-18. He seized M.O. 5 earth under Exhibit P-13 which was attested by P.W.7. He searched for the accused, but he could not succeed in arresting him. After the postmortem examination, P.W.9, the Police Constable, produced M.Os. 2 to 4 the clothes worn by Ganga Bai, at the police station and they were sent for chemical examination. Information was received by the Deputy Inspector of Police, Tiruppapuliyur, who is P.W.11, in this case, on 29th May, 1975 that the accused was at Tiruvendipuram three miles away from the place of occurrence and, therefore, P.W.11 went to Gadilam river bank at Tiruvendipuram and arrested the accused at 5-45 a.m. on said date. On interrogation by P.W.11, the accused gave a statement the admissible portion of which is marked as Exhibit P-14 and the accused also undertook to produce the knife with which he stabbed the deceased. Accordingly, the accused took the police party to Sankara Naidu Street, Tiruppapuliyur and showed a manure heap where he hid M.O. 1 and from the manure heap, the accused took out M.O. 1 which was seized by P.W.11 under Exhibit P-15 which was attested by P.W.8. 8. As stated above, the material objects seized and recovered were sent to the chemical examination and Exhibit P-11 and Exhibit P-12 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. After completing the investigation, P.W.12 laid charge-sheet against the accused. 9. The accused, when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code denied the offence. But, however, he has not examined anybody on his side nor has he filed any statement denying the offence committed by him. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, on going through the evidence projected by the prosecution and also on going through the exhibits filed in the case, was convinced that the accused has stabbed the deceased Ganga Bai and has also caused injuries to her husband, P.W.1. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, on going through the evidence projected by the prosecution and also on going through the exhibits filed in the case, was convinced that the accused has stabbed the deceased Ganga Bai and has also caused injuries to her husband, P.W.1. Therefore, instead of convicting him under section 302, Indian Penal Code, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased and to one year rigorous imprisonment tinder section 324, Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to P.W.1 with M.O. 1 and directed the sentence to run concurrently. 11. It is against this conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the above appeal. 12. Mr. Ramanujachari, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused by the learned Sessions Judge is improper and is not based on the facts of the case. "Many identical points were debated and argued, but I have ignored those simple micro-questions and I have confined myself to micro-determinations" which are as follows: (1) The occurrence has taken place at about 9-00 p.m. on 19th May, 1975 and the early hours of 1-00 a.m. on 20th May, the first information report was lodged in 1975 and there is a gross delay and such a delay in a murder case shows that the police has taken time to prepare a well-set case, and on this ground the conviction and sentence of the accused have to be set aside. (2) Apart from P.W.1, the only evidence for the prosecution is P.W.2 and he should not be believed, for according to him, P.W.2 was not present at the place of occurrence. (3) M.O.1 with which the offence is said to have been committed, was recovered only after 10 days and, therefore, the said M.O.1 could not have been at the place as alleged by the prosecution nor it would have been pointed out by the accused during his extrajudicial confession; and (4) The entire length of M.O.is 8" and the length of the blade is 4" and the doctor during postmortem examination says that the depth of the injury could have been 8" and, therefore, the injury could not have been inflicted on the deceased by the accused with M.O.1. 13. 13. With the above propositions, the Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the case of the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused has to be acquitted. 14. Let me first take the first contention of the learned Counsel regarding the delay in filing the first information report. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1, the husband of the deceased and his children were living in Sankara Naidu Street. In the same street, the accused was also living with his wife. In between the two houses, P.W.1’s mother Jayalakshmi was living with her daughter Vittobai. It appears there was some misunderstanding between the brothers over the return of Vittobai to her mothers house and consequently there used to be quarrel among the women-folk, particularly between the deceased and the accused’s wife Saroja. The accused is the elder brother of P.W.1 or in other words the deceased is the sister-in-law of the accused. 15. On 19th May, 1975 at about 8-30 p.m. when P.W.1 was taking food in his house, the deceased was sitting on the pial. The accused came and stood in front of his house abusing the deceased. P.W.1 the husband of the deceased, after hearing the abusing of the accused to his wife, came out and questioned the accused as to why he was abusing. This has infuriated the accused and he has stabbed his elder brother, P.W.1 with M.O.1 on his left flank and left shoulder. The stabbing incident and the injuries caused on P.W.1 are fortified by the wound certificate, Exhibit P-4 issued by the doctor, P.W.4. When the deceased found that her husband was being stabbed, she interfered in the quarrel. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 and the injuries on the deceased were made clear by the doctor, P.W.5, who conducted post-mortem examination. The seriousness of the injuries is more particularly mentioned in Exhibit P-7 the post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.5. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that P.W.1 and the deceased received injuries with M.O.1 on 19th May, 1975 at about 9-00 p.m. It is also the evidence of P.W.2 that he was present at the time of occurrence. According to him, he is a resident of Sankara Naidu Street. At about 9-00 p.m. the incident has taken place and he has witnessed the occurrence. According to him, he is a resident of Sankara Naidu Street. At about 9-00 p.m. the incident has taken place and he has witnessed the occurrence. He also says that light! was also burning at the time when the stabbing incident took place and he could see what was happening. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused was abusing P.W.1 before his house. P.W.2 told him not to abuse his elder brother. Thereafter, the deceased came and hurled abuses to the accused. The accused after bearing the abuses went inside his house and brought M.O.1 and there was scuffle between P.W.1 and the accused. In the scuffle, accused stabbed P.W.1, with M.O.1. At that time, the deceased asked the accused as to why he is stabbing her husband and if he wants, he can stab her. Immediately, the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1. During cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that the deceased was abusing in vulgar language to the accused and it is only after that, the accused has stabbed the deceased. He also states that he was present at that time when P.W.1, took the deceased to the hospital. He was enquired by the police at the hospital. He is a painter by profession. So from the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that he was the only person who was present at the time of occurrence and P.W.1, seeing his wife in a precarious condition, took her in a cycle-rickshaw to the Government Hospital where she was examined by P.W.4 and found dead. Later, he returned to see his children and after leaving them in his father-in-law’s house, P.W.1 went to the Tiruppapuliyur Police Station and gave the complaint, Exhibit P-1. As stated above, the incident has taken place between 8-30 p.m. and 9-00 p.m. and naturally as a person who was more worried about his wife seeing that blood was gushing from her neck and in his anxiety to save her life, P.W.1 straightaway went to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore. After learning from P.W.4 that his wife is dead, he came to the house, took his children and kept them in his-father-in-law’s house and went to the police station. In between this, there is a delay of about 4 hours. After learning from P.W.4 that his wife is dead, he came to the house, took his children and kept them in his-father-in-law’s house and went to the police station. In between this, there is a delay of about 4 hours. I do not think that there is a gross delay or due to the delay of 4 hours the police could have concocted a case against the accused. Nowhere in the evidence has it been suggested or brought to light by the accused that the police was inimical against him or for that matter P.W.2 was not present at the scene of occurrence. Even in the first information to P.W.10 by P.W.1, it has been mentioned that P.W.2 was present at the time of occurrence. This first information report has reached the Magistrate at 6-15 a.m. the next day. Even though there is a delay of about 4 hours in giving the first information report, the said delay cannot be said to be unexplained. One has to realise that when P.W.1 seeing his wife in a very dangerous condition and particularly when blood was gushing from her neck, would rather see that his wife (deceased) is saved and medical aid is rendered immediately rather than set the law in motion for punishing the culprit. The evidence of P.W.1 is that he was anxious about the life of his wife and, therefore he took her to the hospital which is about a mile. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and in the absence of any motive against the police officials, it cannot be said that the delay of 4 hours in lodging the complaint is intentional or in any way affect the case of the prosecution. 16. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the police station is also in the same street and, therefore, the complaint could have been lodged by P.W.1 against the accused and:he non-lodging of the complaint by P.W.1 is ‘fatal to the case of the prosecution. 16. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the police station is also in the same street and, therefore, the complaint could have been lodged by P.W.1 against the accused and:he non-lodging of the complaint by P.W.1 is ‘fatal to the case of the prosecution. I think, as stated above, ‘that when P.W.1 himself was being stabbed with M.O.1 and also seeing his wife in a very precarious and serious condition, one would naturally like to see that wife is taken immediately to the hospital to render aid rather than lodging a complaint to the police and I do not think that the delay is such a gross delay which seriously affects the credibility of Exhibit P-1 in informing the police. Even in Exhibit P-1, the name of P.W.2 is mentioned by P.W.1 stating that P.W.2 has witnessed the occurrence and. therefore, it cannot be said that P.W.2 was not present at the place of occurrence. 17. Further, in Exhibit P-1, the report given by P.W.1 to the police, it is clearly mentioned that P.W.1 was taking meals in his house and that his wife was feeding her children with milk and at that time the accused abused in vulgar language to the deceased and P.W.1 and P.W.1 hearing the abuse hurled on the deceased, came out and asked him, as to why he was abusing and the accused stabbed P.W.1 and when the deceased intervened, the accused stabbed the deceased also with M.O.1. Blood was gushing and, therefore, P.W.1 had to think of admitting his wife in the hospital, rather than reporting the matter to the police. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out to me that there is a correction in Exhibit P-1 with reference to the date. I have looked into Exhibit P-1 the complaint. Exhibit P-1 was lodged at 1-15 a.m. in the early hours and, therefore, the date is changed from 19th May, 1975 to 20th May, 1975. I do not think that there is any serious infirmity or improbability in the complaint. The complaint was immediately sent and the same was received by the Magistrate. Therefore, I find that it could not be said that there is a gross delay lodging the complaint which effects the case of the prosecution. 18. I do not think that there is any serious infirmity or improbability in the complaint. The complaint was immediately sent and the same was received by the Magistrate. Therefore, I find that it could not be said that there is a gross delay lodging the complaint which effects the case of the prosecution. 18. It is no doubt true that the object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. On account of delay, “the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation”. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In this case, I find that the delay in lodging the complaint is satisfactorily explained. One would rather think to save the life of a person, particularly when the patient is in a serious condition, by taking the said person to the hospital rather than going to the police station and informing about the occurrence. In any event, there is no gross delay as alleged by the Counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is a delay in lodging the complaint to the police station is unsustainable. 19. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of P.W.2 should not be believed, for according to him, he could not have been present at the time of occurrence. It is very clear on going through Exhibit P-1 and also on going through the evidence of P.W.2, that P.W.2 was present at the time of occurrence and there is nothing to discredit the testimony of P.W.2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the non-examination of the neighbours of the locality to speak to the occurrence affects the prosecution case, cannot be accepted. P.W.2 has withstood the test of cross-examination and there is no possibility of disbelieving his evidence, for it is he who has witnessed the occurrence and his ocular testimony has to be believed. The evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and natural and corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 has withstood the test of cross-examination and there is no possibility of disbelieving his evidence, for it is he who has witnessed the occurrence and his ocular testimony has to be believed. The evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and natural and corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, I am of the view that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. Further, it cannot also be said that P.W.2 is a chance witness. On the other hand, he is a person who resides a few houses off in the very same street and there cannot be any room to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, for at a time when he saw the occurrence, there was enough light from the street lamp. 20. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that no other witnesses have been examined with reference to the recovery of the blood stained knife, M.O.1 and that the only evidence of a person from Tiruvendipuram which is three miles away from the scene of occurrence and who is an attesting witness to Exhibit P-15, could not be relied upon. It should be noted that the occurrence has taken place on 19th May, 1975. The Deputy Inspector of Police, P.W.11 came to know about the movement of the accused and, therefore, he went to Gadilam river bank at Tiruvendipuram and arrested the accused at 5-45 a.m. on 29th May, 1975. The time of the arrest of the accused itself shows that it is early hours on 29th May, 1975. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused, after arrest, confessed that he would produce M.O.1. Accordingly, the Deputy Inspector of Police produced M.O.1, which was blood stained. Tiruppapuliyur, and from a manure heap, south of his house, the accused took out and produced M.O.1, which was blood stained. It is also the case of the prosecution that he took it from inside the manure heap. P. W. 11 seized it under Exhibit P-15 and the said seizure was attested by P.W.8 and another one named Vasu. The evidence of P.W.11 is that while he was watching for the accused, the village Munsif of Tiruvendipuram came there, of his own accord near the Gadilam river bank. P. W. 11 seized it under Exhibit P-15 and the said seizure was attested by P.W.8 and another one named Vasu. The evidence of P.W.11 is that while he was watching for the accused, the village Munsif of Tiruvendipuram came there, of his own accord near the Gadilam river bank. The evidence of P.W.8, the Village Munsif is that at about 5.45 a.m., he went to Gadilam river and at that time he saw the police officials. According to P. W. 8, P.W.11 arrested the accused who has given a statement to P.W.11, that he hid M.O.1 at a place and if he is taken there, he will point it out. He is an attesting witness. Therefore, P.W.8 also accompanied P.W.11. 21. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant wants to make out from this evidence that when there are 10 or 15 persons present at the time of recovery of M.O.1 why prosecution has not taken the signature of those persons, who were witnessing the occurrence, but has taken the attestation of only P.W.8 and Vasu who are the persons from Tiruvendipuram and, therefore, their evidence and the recovery of M.O.1 creates suspicion and should not be believed. The circumstance, under which P.W.8 happened to be present must noted. When P.W.11 went, on information that the accused, was near Gadilam river, he saw not only the accused, but also P.W.8. Therefore, P. W. 8 accompanied P.W.11 along with one Vasu and they came to the place of occurrence where the accused has taken out M.O.1, from the manure heap. It is not suggested anywhere to P.W.8 or to P.W.11, that P.W.8 and Vasu were inimical to the accused and, therefore, their signature have been taken in Exhibit P-15. No allegations have been levelled by the accused against the said persons to show that they are inimical against the accused nor they are trying to involve the accused in such an offence. No) motive of any kind whatsoever has been suggested by the accused for obtaining the signature of P.W.8 in Exhibit P-15. Just because the prosecution has not obtained the signatures of the local people, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W.8 should be disbelieved. No doubt, P.W.8 is a person of Tiruvendipuram which is 3 miles away from the place of occurrence. Just because the prosecution has not obtained the signatures of the local people, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W.8 should be disbelieved. No doubt, P.W.8 is a person of Tiruvendipuram which is 3 miles away from the place of occurrence. But it should also be noted that the Deputy Inspector of Police went there to arrest the accused and while arresting the accused, P.W.8 came that way and P.W.8 has accompanied P. W. 11. Therefore, it was only by chance, P.W.8, and another Vasu were present who have attested Exhibit P-15. On that ground alone, this Court cannot disbelieve their evidence, in the absence of any other motive against them. P.W.8 has withstood the test of cross-examination and there is nothing to suggest that he is uttering falsehood against the accused. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of a person from Tiruvendipuram, who is the only person available to attest Exhibit P-15 cannot be believed, is also unsustainable. As stated above, it is only by chance, when the Deputy Inspector of Police went to Gadilam river and arrested the accused and when the accused was brought on his confession that he would take out M.O.1 from the manure heap. P.W.8 who was present at that time, accompanied them. 22. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that M.O.1 knife could not have been used by the accused as contended by the prosecution, for according to him the length of the knife of M.O.1 together with its blade is 8" the length of the blade is 4" and, therefore, the depth of the 8" injury as is found by P.W.5 on the person of the deceased cannot be believed. In short, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that when there is a wound of about 8"deep as is found by P.W.5 on the person of the deceased, the blade M.O.1, which is 4" in length, could not have caused such a deep injury. In short, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that when there is a wound of about 8"deep as is found by P.W.5 on the person of the deceased, the blade M.O.1, which is 4" in length, could not have caused such a deep injury. It should be noted that the evidence of P.W.5 is that the length of the blade portion of the knife, if it pierces into the body the tip of M.O.1 should have touched the 8th inch and P. W. 5 has definitely denied the suggestion of the Counsel appearing for the appellant that the instrument bigger than M.O.1 should have been used to cause the above injury. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.5 that it is only M.O.1, that would have caused the injury. When an expert evidence like the doctor is let in. by the prosecution to show that the injury could have been caused by M.O.1 alone, I find no serious cross-examination has been made to the doctor as to whether M.O.1 would have caused such a deep injury. The doctor deposes that the wound extended downwards and towards the right-side crossing the midline cutting the ribbon muscles and larynx and she also opines that the external injury and its corresponding internal injury as noticed by her could have been caused by stabbing with a weapon like M.O.1. She also avers that “if force is used, soft tissues yield and so it is possible to cause 8”deep with M.O.1“. If such is the evidence of the doctor, I do not think that the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that M.O.1 could not have been used as to cause such an injury or 8” depth, can be accepted. In matters of appreciating the evidence with reference to the injury inflicted on the deceased, the Court has to believe only the expert evidence of the doctor who has deposed in this case and when the evidence of P.W.5 is that M.O.1 could have caused the injury as explained by her, there is nothing for the Court to disbelieve the evidence of the doctor. Therefore, this argument also of the learned Counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2. According to him, P.W.1 is the brother of the accused. Therefore, this argument also of the learned Counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. 23. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2. According to him, P.W.1 is the brother of the accused. In the absence of any enmity or ill-will against the accused, there is no necessity for P.W.1 to adduce false evidence. P.W.1 is only interested in ensuring that the real culprit, who is responsible for the murder of his wife, has to be punished. The fact of the relationship of the accused would add to value of his evidence because he is a person interested in setting the real culprit convicted rather than innocent persons punished. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Samman Doss1, “in a murder trial the relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the deceased is not a sufficient ground for discrediting their testimony, unless a motive is alleged and proved against them to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person in place of the assailant.” In this case, nothing has been suggested that there is a motive to implicate the accused in the incident. The deceased is the accused’s sister-in-law and P.W.1 is his brother. There is no necessity for them to implicate the brother unless he is a person who has committed the offence. Therefore, it cannot be denied, taking into consideration the entire evidence and the totality of the circumstances adduced in the case, that it is only the accused who has committed the offence which is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 24. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and also the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem the evidence of P.W.8, P.W.11, P.W.1 and P.W.2. I find that the case of the prosecution is substantially proved beyond reasonable doubt. The version of P.W.1 taken along with Exhibit P-1 is corroborated by P.W.2. Therefore, the criticism levelled by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no other witnesses have been examined or the local persons have not been examined with reference to the occurrence in this case, pales into insignificance. It must also be noted that “credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality and not isolated scrutiny. It must also be noted that “credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality and not isolated scrutiny. It is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty cannot get away with it, because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human process”. The evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes the guilt against the accused and it has fulfilled the ingredients of section 304, Part II, section 324, Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, the conviction by the learned Sessions Judge under the aforesaid sections is confirmed. 25. As far as the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge under sections 324 and 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, it appears to me that the sentence is rather too severe. It should be noted that the accused is the brother of P.W.1 and the deceased is the sister-in-law of the accused. It is clear from the case of the prosecution that the deceased hurled abuses against the accused in view of some misunderstanding between the brothers, over the return of Vittobai to her mother’s house.. Some quarrel appears to have taken place among the womenfolk between the deceased and the accused’s wife Saroja. In view of this misunderstanding, the accused on 19th May, 1975 was abusing the deceased (his sister-in-law) and on hearing the abuses P. W. 1, the husband of the deceased, came out and questioned the accused as to why he was abusing and this has resulted in the stabbing incident. There is no motive or intention on the part of the accused to murder the deceased or to stab his elder brother P.W.1. This incident has taken place in a frenzy or in a fit of anger. 26. Taking into consideration the relationship of the parties and the offence committed by the accused, it is just, in the interest of justice, that the sentence imposed on the accused by the learned Sessions Judge of 7 years rigorous imprisonment under section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code is modified to that of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under section 324, Indian Penal Code is modified to that of six months rigorous imprisonment with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. With the above modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed .