M. K. Chawla,j. ( 1 ) AZAD Singh, appellant was convicted for the offenceunder section 304 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 7 years. The period already undergone by him was set off by virtue of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code. He filed the appeal through Superintendent, Jail. At his request, Miss Nandita Chandra, Advocate was appointed amicus curiae. She worked hard on the case and has ably put the arguments before this Court. ( 2 ) THE circumstances under which Azad Singh was apprehended in brief,are-that one Shri Jai Parkash alongwith his family members was residing athouse No. WZ-162, Shadipur, New Delhi. Azad Singh accused was in occupation of a nearby house bearing no. WZ-171. He was living alongwith his familyand parents. As the story goes, one Shri Harkesh nephew of Jai Parkash hadillicit relations with the wife of Azad Singb. He was spending all his salary onthat woman. Ramesh is the elder brother of Harkesh. He was aware of thisrelationship. Few days prior to the date of the incident, Ramesh alongwith hisuncle Partap Singh advised Azad Singh accused that he should keep his wifeunder control. This was not to the liking of Azad Singh and he exchanged hotwords with them. ( 3 ) ON 30. 3. 83 at about 9. 15 P. M. , Jai Parkash, his elder brother Rameshand uncle Pratap Singh went to the house of Azad Singh to sort out the matter. Jai Prakash called Azad Singh out and they again told him that he should keephis wife under check, so that the life of Harkesh is not ruined. Azad Singhflew into rage and started hurling abuses telling those persons that theywere unnecessarily bringing bad name to his wife. Pratap Singh tried to sendazad Singh inside the house but the latter took out a Chhuri and gave blowson the left side of the chest and arm of Pratap Singh. On receipt of theinjuries, Pratap Singh fell down. Jai Parkash and Ramesh caught hold of Azadsingh with the chhuri. In that process, Azad Singh also received minor injuries. They immediately raised noise, on hearing of which, many persons of themohalla assembled. Jai Parkash and one Ashok Kumar took Pratap Singh tothe Willingdon Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter, where the doctors declaredhim dead. Jai Parkash and Ramesh caught hold of Azadsingh with the chhuri. In that process, Azad Singh also received minor injuries. They immediately raised noise, on hearing of which, many persons of themohalla assembled. Jai Parkash and one Ashok Kumar took Pratap Singh tothe Willingdon Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter, where the doctors declaredhim dead. Message was flashed to the Police Station, as a consequence ofwhich, S. I. Didar Singh first went to the hospital, procured the medico-legalreport, racorded the statement of Jai Parkash and got registered a case u/s 302indian Penal Code He also collected the blood-stained clothes of Pratap Singh from thehospital. Thereafter, he came to the spot, got the scene of occurrence photographed and plan prepared. The weapon of offence was taken into possession. Blood was lifted from the spot, statements of the witnessess were recorded, theaccused was arrested. Jai Parkash was also got medically examined. Duringthe course of the investigation, the 1. 0. obtained the post-mortem report, completed the investigation and filed the challan. ( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Theprosecution examined a number of witnesses out of which Jai Parkash andramesh are the witnesses of the actual occurrence. The accused while underexamination u/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code admitted that Pratap Singh, Jai Parkash andramesh were living near his house in village Shadipur. Shri Harkesh, his friend,was on visiting terms to his house. He, however, denied that Harkesh hadillicit relations with his wife Saroj or he was spending his salary on her. Hedenied having attacked Pratap Singh or had given him chhuri blows. In fact,pratap Singh and his companions had come inside his house and shouted tokill him. They started giving him beating. He acted in his self-defence. Theknife used by him was not a chhuri but a small kitchen knife. He, however,led no evidence in defence. The learned lower court on consideration of theoral as well as documentary evidence on record believed the prosecution versionand convicted and sentenced the accused as stated earlier. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused has raised four-fold contentions. According to her, the occurrence took place inside the house of the accusedwhere the complainant party had levelled the allegations of immoral andunchaste conduct of his wife. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused has raised four-fold contentions. According to her, the occurrence took place inside the house of the accusedwhere the complainant party had levelled the allegations of immoral andunchaste conduct of his wife. The complainant party also gave beating to theaccused who in order to save himself and to ward off the danger gave one blowwith a pen knife in his self-defence. She also urged that there is a delay inrecording the F. I. R. no independent witness has been produced and the injurieson the person of Azad Singh have not been fully explained. Learned counselfor the State, on the other hand, has controverted the submissions and hastaken me through the record showing that none of these arguments are borneout from the evidence. ( 6 ) THE incident has taken place at about 9. 15 P. M. on 30. 3. 83. Theaccused was present at his house when Public Witness Jai Parkash, Ramesh and Pratapsingh had gone there. It is the case of the prosecution that the PWs madeimputations of immoral character to Saroj, the wife of the accused. The accusedadmits the presence of the PWs but according to him, these persons had givenhim beating inside the house. He acted in self-defence by inflicting injury onthe person of Pratap Singh by a small vegetables cutting knife. If the incidenttook place inside the house then certainly some blood would have fallen in thecompound of the house. This is not so. According to the 1. 0. and the attesting witnesses of the memos, the blood had fallen in the street and was liftedfrom there. Admittedly, the PWs had gone to the house of the accused unarmedand had no intention to quarrel or cause any bodily injury. On that account,there was no occasion for them to go inside the house of the accused or causeany injury to him. The first submission as such has no substance. ( 7 ) IT may be that except Public Witness Jai Parkash and Ramesh the prosecutionhas not produced any other eye-witnesses but for that also, there is a validexplanation. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the actual occurrenceno other person was present except the deceased and the two P. Ws. Otherscame on the scene after hearing the noise. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the actual occurrenceno other person was present except the deceased and the two P. Ws. Otherscame on the scene after hearing the noise. Further more, it was the month ofmarch and generally the people are expected to be indoors at about 9. 15 P. M. The presence of Jai Parkash andRamesh Public Witness is amply admitted by the accused. The prosecution rightly did not try to introduce any other witness to thisoccurrence as in fact there was none. Even accused had not thought it worthwhile to examine his wife, father or mother to falsify or contradict the versionof the prosecution. Whether Jai Parkash and Ramesh are near relations orinterested persons will not make any difference insofar as they narrate theactual sequence of the occurrence which goes completely with the prosecutionstory. Their testimony has rightly been believed by the learned trial court andi have also no hesitation to accept the same as reliable and correct. ( 8 ) THERE is also no delay in the registration of the case. The time of theoccurrence is 9. 15 P. M. The deceased was removed to the Willingdon hospital. Constable Harnam Singh was on duty. He gave the information at about10. 10. P. M. to the Police Station Patel Nagar. The entry was recorded in thedaily Diary at serial no. 28-A. Its copy was given to Didar Singh who went tothe hospital. In the meantime, the Police Control Room had also been informed of the incident at about 9. 30 P. M. A. S. I. Ram Kishan went to the spot. Azad Singh was produced before him by Public Witness Rajpal and Ramesh with Chhri. A. S. I. Ram Kishan did not move in the matter except guarding the scene ofoccurrence and waited for the arrival of the 1. 0. At the hospital, Didar Singhmanaged to obtain the medico-legal report and the blood stained clothes ofthe deceased and after some persuation. He then recorded the statement ofjai Parkash Public Witness and sent the ruqa to Police Station for the registration of thecase. Thereafter, he came to the spot and completed the other formalities. Ittook sometime but there was no question of fabricating the evidence or falselyimplicating the accused who had been apprehended immediately after theoccurrence and handed over to the Police at about 9. Thereafter, he came to the spot and completed the other formalities. Ittook sometime but there was no question of fabricating the evidence or falselyimplicating the accused who had been apprehended immediately after theoccurrence and handed over to the Police at about 9. 30 P. M. ( 9 ) THE medical evidence fairly and squarely supports the ocular testimony of the P. Ws. On examination at the hospital, the post-mortem doctornoticed as many as 7 external injuries on the person of Pratap Singh, deceased. These were mostly abrasions which could be the result of falling on the groundor while being taken to the hospital in a three wheeler scooter. Injury no. 7was described as incised stab would 3/4 XI/2 xl vertically placed on the leftside chest wall in mid auxilliary line 4. 5 below the armpit. In the opinion ofthe doctor, injuries no. 1 to 6 were caused by blunt object/force and the incisedwound on the chest wall was caused by sharp edged weapon and was sufficientto cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was due to haemorrhagic shock resulting from the injury. The prosecution has also given a validexplanation of the injuries on the person of the accused. Dr. J. K. Handa hadfound abrasions on the nose and chest, contusion on the left thigh and lateralside of chest. Injuries on the person of Azad Singh were opined by the doctorto be possible in a scuffle or as a result of fall. Even according to Azad Singhthere was some scuffle and grappling before he gave knife blow to Pratap Singhit also admits of no doubt that the complainant party must have given himbeating after disarming and over powering him to give vent to their anger andaroused emotions. This in my opinion sufficiently explained the injuries on theperson of accused Azad Singh and there is nothing to doubt the prosecutionstory on this account. ( 10 ) THE story of self-defence set up by the accused has also not beenaccepted and in my opinion on valid grounds. In this behalf, the learned lowercourt has referred to numerous judgments against which there was nothingsubstantial for the learned counsel to argue. ( 10 ) THE story of self-defence set up by the accused has also not beenaccepted and in my opinion on valid grounds. In this behalf, the learned lowercourt has referred to numerous judgments against which there was nothingsubstantial for the learned counsel to argue. However, I am in respectfulagreement with the canclusion of the learned lower court that in the presentcase, the accused had flared up when Pratap Singh, Ramesh and Jai Parkashhad asserted that his wife was unchaste and was indulging in illicit love affairswith Harkesh. Having regard to the strata of society to which the accusedbelonged, the type of people around, the kind of locality and the nature ofrelationship he had with Harkesh, the accused lost control and picked up aknife and gave a blow on the chest of Pratap Singh. Provocation was notsought voluntarily and there was no pre-meditation. The accused did not goanywhere in search of knife and cannot be said to have taken any undueadvantage. There was a sudden quarrel in the beat of passion and the casefalls u/s 304 (1) Indian Penal Code and not u/s 302 Indian Penal Code With this conclusion, the accusedazad Singh was rightly held guilty and convicted of the offence u/s 304 (1) ofthe Indian Penal Code. ( 11 ) ON the question of sentence, learned counsel for the accused hassubmitted that her client has been in judicial custody for the last about 4 years. By this time he has earned remission of more than six months. During thisperiod, his father has expired and his aged mother suffering from a deadlydisease. He has no brother or any other relation to look after his wife and aninfant child and that he is a young man of 26 years of age with no previousconviction. According to her, it is a fit case for showing leniency. Learnedcounsel for the State has nothing to say on the question of sentence. Keepingin view the circumstances leading to the unfortunate incident and the fact thatthere is nobody to look after the aged mother, wife and infant son of theaccused, the ends of justice, in my opinion, will be fully met if the sentence isreduced to the one already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The accused bereleased immediately if not wanted in any other case.