B. C. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing death of his farther-in-law Hariwan at about 3. 00 P. M. on 5-10-1982 in a locality known as Gwalitoli in Hoshangabad. ( 2 ) THE finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the appellant is that at 3. 00 P. M. on the fateful day the appellant came to the house of the deceased, called him outside, took him to a nearby Neem tree and then gave a stab blow on the left side of his chest, cutting a rib and big vessels resulting in excessive bleeding causing shock and then ultimate death Dehati Nalishi Ex. P. 1) was recorded on information from Rameshwan (P. W. 1), the brother of the deceased. Constable Ramawatar (P. W. 9) chased and caught hold of the appellant who was captured in a room on a railway platform He was then taken into custody and from him knife and clothes were seized. The Cycle was seized from the spot and so also the shoes. They were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and then to Serologist who both opined that the blood-stains found on these articles were of human blood. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex P-18 and that of the Serologist is Ex P-20. Seizure memos are Ex. P-2, Ex P-3 and Ex. P-S. The post morten report by Dr. N. K. Pandey (P. W. 7) is Ex. P. 10-A showing the extent of injury and containing an opinion that the injury was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death. As many as five witnesses are examined. Their testimony has been accepted. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the defence first submitted in support of this appeal that the Dehati Nalishi (Ex P1) and F. I. R. (Ex. P-la) said to be recorded at 3. 15 and 3. 30 P. M. respectively are shrouded with suspicion in view of the statement of Ramawatar (P. W. 1) and Ramawatar (P. W. 9 ). There does appear to be some confusion prima-facie but then if closely scrutinised there does not seem to be much substance in this contention. According to Rameshwan (P. W. 1) he gave the information pursuant to which Ex. P-i, Dehati Nalishi was recorded at the police station. There does appear to be some confusion prima-facie but then if closely scrutinised there does not seem to be much substance in this contention. According to Rameshwan (P. W. 1) he gave the information pursuant to which Ex. P-i, Dehati Nalishi was recorded at the police station. However, according to -Ramawatar (P. W. 9) and R. G. Shrivastava, S I. (P. W. 11), the same was recorded only on the spot, what we really find is that the information was given on the spot where after they all proceeded to the police station and there from to the hospital. It is under these circumstances that Rameshwan (P. W. 1) stated that he made the report at the police station. This all happened in a quick succession and within such a short time. Such variation in deposition of witnesses recorded after considerable passage of time is possible. Nothing, therefore, turns upon this aspect of the matter, and we are not prepared to accept this contention that all this is made up affair and the appellants name has been inserted in these reports only because the assailant could not be traced. The immediate lodging of the report does not admit of any such contention. This contention is, therefore, rejected. ( 4 ) IT was then contended that except for the statement of Rameshwan (P. W. 1) the statements of other witnesses, although available, were recorded only on 20th Oct. , 1982. This, according to the learned defence counsel, is very damaging to the prosecution. It is true that, be prosecution is guilty of closing this delay but then it only puts one on guard before accepting the version of those witnesses in Court. However, so far as Rameshwan (P. W. 1) is concerned he not only informed the police then only but his statement was also recorded the very day. In Court he - had described the whole incident quite minutely stating as to how the deceased was called from his house and noticing some delay in his return how he went to the spot where he found the two talking and then saw the appellant giving a blow on the chest of the deceased. Thereafter he tried to run away but was chased by Ramawatar (P. W. 9) and then ultimately caught by him. He bas been confronted with his earlier statement and there do appear some contradictions between these statements. Thereafter he tried to run away but was chased by Ramawatar (P. W. 9) and then ultimately caught by him. He bas been confronted with his earlier statement and there do appear some contradictions between these statements. However, in our opinion, those contradiction are not sufficient to treat him as a her His evidence appeals to us well. Not only this it is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The doctor has found such a stab blow as is described by this witness on the chest of the deceased. His testimony is corroborated by the other eye-witnesses including constable Ramawatar (P. W. 9 ). The criticism is that all the witnesses are interested being relatives of the deceased and independent witnesses examined in the case did not support the prosecution. It is, therefore, urged that the relatives of the deceased have falsely implicated the appellant. We do not find it to be so. The testimony of other witnesses is also quite reliable. ( 5 ) WE must however find some corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses in view of what is submitted about them by the learned defence counsel. The corroboration is very much on the record. We have the map (Ex. p 6) naming the appellant as the assailant. Then we have the seizures of different articles belonging to the appellant. The knife and the cycle have been seized from him. His clothes also were seized vide Ex. P-5. As stated earlier they have all been found to be stained with human blood. (Ex. P. 18 and Ex. P. 20 ). It is again true that the witnesses to the seizure of these articles have not supported the prosecution but the person affecting such seizure in Investigating Officer RG. Shrivastava (P. W. 11) has proved them well and we do not see any reason to reject his testimony. There is no law that a finding as to the proper recovery and seizure cannot be based solely upon the evidence of Investigating Officer even if the witnesses to that effect have turned hostile to the prosecution. We have examined the evidence of RG. Shrivastava (P. W. 11) and to us it inspires confidence. We accept his testimony, and consequently, hold the seizure of those articles well proved. This is strong corroborative piece of evidence lending credence to the testimony of eyewitnesses. We have examined the evidence of RG. Shrivastava (P. W. 11) and to us it inspires confidence. We accept his testimony, and consequently, hold the seizure of those articles well proved. This is strong corroborative piece of evidence lending credence to the testimony of eyewitnesses. Our finding, therefore, is that it is the appellant who assaulted the deceased with a knife and caused injury on his chest as a consequence of which he died. ( 6 ) THE question nevertheless is whether the appellant can be held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I. P. C. Learned counsel for the defence urged with considerable amount of force that the act of the appellant would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he cannot be intended to cause the assault resulting in death. There see us to be substance in this argument. ( 7 ) IT is in the deposition of Rameshwan (P. W. I) (Para. 7) that after the deceased was taken out from his house there had been some hot talk between the appellant and the deceased over the sending of the appellants wife to him. He accepted to have made such a statement to the police during investigation. This statement is further corroborated by that of Ramawatar (P. W. 9) Para. 4. This witness also deposed that the two persons i. e. the appellant and the deceased grappled. They were even beating each other and it is only during this fight that the appellant suddenly took out the knife from his pocket and made a fatal assault. From this it appears that after the deceased was taken out from his house to the Neem tree, the appellant and deceased had some talk. There appearing to be some disagreement between the two on the question of the appellant's wife being sent to him. There was hot talk, which developed into a fight. Fist blows were exchanged and it is then at the spur of moment that the appellant suddenly took out his knife and with it gave one blow which most unfortunately fell on the chest of the deceased. This act of the appellant, therefore, clearly falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This act of the appellant, therefore, clearly falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant certainly did not intend to cause death but it should be deemed to have knowledge that the blow on the chest could result in death. Only one blow was caused in our opinion, therefore, the appellant is guilty only of offence punishable under the and part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. We hold and convict him accordingly. ( 8 ) AS regards sentence we find that the appellant is a young man of 22 years. The person killed was no person than his father law. He has remained in jail for a period of about four years. The sentence already undergone in these circumstances, in our opinion, shall meet the ends of justice. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is partly allowed The applicants conviction is altered from Section 302 of the I. P. C. to one under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and be is sentenced to a period already undergone by him in jail. Appeal partly allowed. .