A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment pissed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 95/83 dated 27-7-84, convicting the appellant under section 302 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, the appellant has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION story in brief is that on 21-11-82, at about 12 in the noon, the accused and his wife Sugnabai were seen quarrelling on Ringnodia Road. The accused was persuading Sugnabai to return back to her home, and she was refusing. The accused was dragging her and on the resistance made by Sugnabai, he dealt blows with a knife on her neck and stomach and fled away from there. Sugnabai was found injured by the witnesses who lifted her and brought her on the road up to the shop. But she succumbed to her injuries before the witnesses were able to take her to the hospital. P. W. 1 Kanhiyalal who is the uncle of the deceased, lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1 at the police station. The police registered an offence against the accused-appellant and started the investigation. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the court by police Shipra. At the trial, the accused was charged by the learned A. S. I. for committing an offence under section 302 by causing the death of Sugnabai. The accused abjured the guilt and claimed a trial. After the trial the accused was convicted and sentenced as above. Hence, this appeal. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed before us that Sugnabai died a homicidal death. Eye-witnesses including P. W. 1 Kanhiyalal and P. W. 2 Hazarilal deposed about the injuries on the person of the deceased. Dr. Rajendra Joshi (P. W. 7) found 3 injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one was on the neck and one was on the stomach. They were caused by some sharp piercing weapon. According to Dr. Joshi the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the cutting of the carotid artery and left internal jugular vein in the neck. As such from the evidence on record also it is proved beyond doubt that deceased died due to the injuries caused to her. They were caused by some sharp piercing weapon. According to Dr. Joshi the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the cutting of the carotid artery and left internal jugular vein in the neck. As such from the evidence on record also it is proved beyond doubt that deceased died due to the injuries caused to her. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Shri Jaisinah has firstly assailed the judgment or the learned lower court on the ground that according to Dr. Joshi injuries No. 1 and 2 could not be caused by the same weapon. Therefore, the court should have hold that the injuries have been caused by more than one person and as such it has wrongly been held that the accused appellant was responsible for causing both the injuries in our opinion the finding of the learned trial court In view of the testimony of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence cannot be held to be erroneous. It is true that Dr. Joshi at one stage of his deposition has stated that both the injuries to the deceased could not be caused by one weapon. But in the same breath he has explained that weapon having one sharp side and other blunt side like a knife could also cause injury as with clean cut edges if only the sharp portion of the weapon comes into contact with the body of the victim. He has further explained that both the Injuries could be caused by same weapon if while causing one Injury both the edges of the weapon come into contact with the body of the victim and while causing the other injury only one edge i. e. sharp edge of the weapon comes in contact with the body of the victim. Thus the statement by Dr. Joshi clearly explains the discrepancy in his statement pertaining to the use of the weapon. This evidence of the medical expert has to be viewed along with the testimony of the eye-witnesses. P. W. Kanhiyalal clearly states that the injuries to the deceased Sugnabai were caused by only one person. P. W. 2 Hazarilal also makes similar statement. Ramchand (P. W. 3 ). This evidence of the medical expert has to be viewed along with the testimony of the eye-witnesses. P. W. Kanhiyalal clearly states that the injuries to the deceased Sugnabai were caused by only one person. P. W. 2 Hazarilal also makes similar statement. Ramchand (P. W. 3 ). Daulatram (P. W. 5) Mohan (P. W. 6) Punamchand (P. W. 8) Vikram (P. W. 9) and Sohanlal P. W. 10 have all made consistent statements before the court that only one person had dealt knife blows to the deceased, Although some of the eyewitness is did not know the accused from before, still this part of their testimony cannot be discarded that one person whom they did not know from before, caused injuries with a knife to the deceased on the neck and stomach. As such in our opinion, the statement of Dr. Joshi about the weapon in one part of his statement is of no avail to the accused and the learned lower court has therefore rightly held that both the Injuries to the deceased were caused by same person and with one person. ( 5 ) IT has been next argued that the witnesses were only chance witnesses and therefore the court should not have placed reliance on their testimony. On perusing the record we find that P. W. 1 Kanhiyalal, who is the uncle of the deceased, was all through present at the place of incident by chance. His testimony therefore cannot be discarded only on the ground of his being chance witness. According to this witness he had gone to Ramchandra Seth for grinding Jwar. There he saw both the accused Sardar and Sugnabai quarrelling. The accused was trying to take Sugnabai with him forcibly. This witness intervened and asked them not to quarrel. Then accused dragged the deceased towards Bajrangbali when they moved only two or four steps ahead accused dealt 2 blows on the neck and stomach of the deceased on which Sugnabai raised an alarm hearing which 8 or 10 persons reached there. Accused Sardar fled away from there. This witness along with other witnesses, lifted Sugnabai and brought her on the road for taking her to the hospital. But she died on the spot. Accused Sardar fled away from there. This witness along with other witnesses, lifted Sugnabai and brought her on the road for taking her to the hospital. But she died on the spot. Then they sent the message to the parents of Sugnabai that her husband had killed her, and this witness along with others went to shipra police station where he lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P. 1. Our attention has been drawn towards the contradictions in his statement before the court and his case diary statement. F. I. R. and statements recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. In our opinion, these contradictions do not lead to an inference that this witness telling a lie about having seen the Incident. His earlier statement in Ex. P. 2 portion A to the effect that he reached the place of incident after an alarm being railed by Sohan and Mohan would not be construed to mean that he did not see the Incident. If his statement is considered as a whole, we find that he was behind the deceased and the accused and he law that the accused dealt two blows to the deceased with a knife. If Sohan and Mohan saw the incident and raised an alarm and after raising the alarm this witness reached the place of incident. It could not mean that he was away from the place of the incident at such a distance that he could not see the incident before reaching the actual place of occurrence therefore, the omissions and contradictions to the statement of this witness are of not such a nature which may be held sufficient to render his testimony doubtful or un-reliable specially when this witness along with others lifted Sugnabai, from the place of incident and also lodged F. I. R. at the nearest police station without any loss of time, wherein also he had deposed about the incident. The testimony of this witness has been corroborated by the testimony of P. W. 2 Hazarilal who is also an eye-witness to the incident. Although from the statement of P. W. 2 it appears that on asking from Kanhiyalal he had told Kanhiyalal that Sardar had dealt blows to the deceased whereupon Kanhiyalal had said that the assailant shall be his son-in-law on which he said that he looked like him. Although from the statement of P. W. 2 it appears that on asking from Kanhiyalal he had told Kanhiyalal that Sardar had dealt blows to the deceased whereupon Kanhiyalal had said that the assailant shall be his son-in-law on which he said that he looked like him. But this part of the testimony of this witness would not be sufficient to hold that Kanhiyalal had not seen the incident. If a witness who himself had seen the incident seeks confirmation from another witness of what he had seen, it would not lead to an inference that he was asking about the assailant or the incident because be had not seen the incident himself. P. W. 3 Ramchandra corroborates Kanhiyalal to this extent that Kanhiyalal and this witness I had intervened to pacify the quarrelling couple whom they found quarrelling on the road and then the husband was dragging the deceased forcibly, although this witness had not seen the assault by the accused on the victim, still his statement supports the testimony of Kanhiyalal on material particulars. P. W. 4 Udaiji also supports the testimony of P. W. 1 to this extent that they received information that his son-in-law had killed his daughter. P. W. 5 Daulatram did not know the accused from before, but he states that one person had dealt two blows to Sugnabai on stomach and neck. Even if his testimony pertaining to his being eye witness to the incident is not believed in view of the omission in his statement Ex. D. 6 on this point then also the statement of this witness supports the prosecution story to this extent that Sugnabai had received 2 knife blows and P. W. 1 Kanhiyalal. (P. W. 1) was present there and had told him that she was his niece. Mohan (P. W. 6) is an eyewitness to the incident. Although he did not know the accused from before, still his testimony corroborates this fact that one persons had dealt knife blows to Sugnabai at the time of the incident. Similarly Poonamchand (P. W. 8) and Mohanlal (P. W. 9) also support the prosecution story about the fact that at the time of the incident one person dealt blows to Sugnabai with a knife. Similarly Poonamchand (P. W. 8) and Mohanlal (P. W. 9) also support the prosecution story about the fact that at the time of the incident one person dealt blows to Sugnabai with a knife. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid testimony of the witnesses, in our opinion, the lower court has rightly bold that it was the accused who caused injuries to the deceased Sugnabai at the time of the incident with a knife. As such we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned trial court on this point. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly argues that the circumstances in which the incident has taken place clearly indicates that the incident took place in the heat of passion and the accused had no intention of either killing the deceased or causing such bodily injuries to her which may be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to us, there is some force in a part of this argument. It is not controverted that the relations between the accused and the deceased were co-ordial. However due to a quarrel with the other ladles of the house, the deceased had left the house of the accused and the accused was consistently persuading her to return to his house. This led to a quarrel and altercation which infuriated the accused resulting in the unfortunate death or the deceased. It is true that the injuries have been indicted by the accused on the vital parts of the body of the victim with deadly weapon. But the incident has take place in the heat of passion leading to grave and sudden provocation. However, in that grave and sudden provocation the weapon like knife has been used and the injury has been caused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. This leads to an inference that the accused wanted to cause to the deceased such bodily injuries as were likely to cause her death. According to medical evidence injury No. 1 was such an injury which was likely to cause the death. However, because of the circumstances of the case, the act of the accused falls within the exception of Section 300. According to medical evidence injury No. 1 was such an injury which was likely to cause the death. However, because of the circumstances of the case, the act of the accused falls within the exception of Section 300. The accused therefore, could not have been convicted under section 302 I. P. C. Instead, he should have been convicted under section 304 (Part 1) because although the intention of the accused was to cause such bodily injuries to the deceased which were likely to cause her death and death has actually been caused due to those injuries, still the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation given by the deceased herself, as a result of the quarrel between the husband and wife and the attitude of the victim leading to that sudden and grave provocation. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. Although he is held reasonable for causing the death of deceased Sugnabai, still in view of the circumstances of the case, his conviction and sentence under section 302 I. P. C. is held to be erroneous. Therefore, it is set aside. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the offence under section 302 I. P. C. Instead, he is found guilty for committing an offence, under section 304 (Part I) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years for that offence. .