Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. The appellant accused stands convicted for an offence under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life 2. The brief facts are :- (i) P.W. 1 is the wife of Murugan alias Murugesan (since deceased). They reside at Rajaipuram in Erode. P.W. 2 is the sister of the deceased. She is living with her husband at Krishnampalayam in Erode. The residences of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are situate at close quarters. The accused is having his residence, adjacent to the house of P.W. 2. The accused and the deceased were friends. (ii) Some three days prior to the occurrence, which happened on 13-12-1982, the deceased was playing DHAYAM in the company of others by sitting in front of the house of one Pappa at Subbiah Street. The accused, in a drunken mood, passed that way. In the process of his staggering walk and gait, his staggering legs accidentally came into contact with the deceased. This resulted in a wordy altercation between them, followed by a scuffle. Since then, it was agitating in the mind of the accused, as if he had been insulted by the deceased. (iii) At 1 p.m. on the day of occurrence, P.W. 1 along with her husband the deceased paid a caurtesy visit to the house of P.W. 2, where they took their lunch. At 2.30 p.m., P.W. 1 and her husband, the deceased along with P.W. 2 were returning to their house through Subbiah Street. While so proceeding, they saw the accused standing at some distance in the street, as though waiting for their arrival. When they were about to pass him, the accused mounted an attack on the deceased with M.O. 1 knife by proclaiming, "You beat me the other day and escaped. 1 will see what happens this day to you !" * and inflicted two or three stabs on his left hand, with the result he fell down on the ground with profuse bleeding. The accused again attempted to inflict a stab on the deceased. The deceased warded off the same by his left leg and the stab fell on his left leg below the knee. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and a neighbour in the locality, P.W. 3 raised a hue and cry. The accused thereafter ran away from the scene and with the weapon of offence in his hand. P.Ws. The deceased warded off the same by his left leg and the stab fell on his left leg below the knee. P.Ws. 1 and 2 and a neighbour in the locality, P.W. 3 raised a hue and cry. The accused thereafter ran away from the scene and with the weapon of offence in his hand. P.Ws. 1 and 2 made arrangements for taking the victim to the hospital in a bid to save his life. In the meantime, he breathed his last on the spot itself(iv) Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the Police Station at Karungalpalayam and gave Exhibit P-1 report, to P.W. 10, Sub-Inspector of Police at about 4.45 p.m. Exhibit P-1 was registered as a case in Crime No. 552/82 under S. 303, I.P.C. Express reports have been prepared and sent to concerned officials. Exhibit P-12 is the printed F.I.R. (v) P.W. 11, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the express F.I.R., at 5 p.m. took up further investigation in the case. He reached the scene at 6 p.m. He prepared observation mahazar, Exhibit R-5, attested by P.W. 8. He drew a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, Exhibit P-13. Between 6.30 and 10 p.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased. Exhibit P-14 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3. He then handed over the body to the Constable, P.W. 7 with a requisition, Exhibit P-2 for the purpose of autopsy. At 10.30 p.m., he seized M.O. 6 bloodstained earth and M.O. 7 sample earth from the scene under Exhibit P-6 mahazar attested by P.W. 8. (vi) The doctor P.W. 5 attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode, on receipt of Exhibit P-2 requisition, conducted autopsy at 8.35 a.m. on 14-12-1982 over the body of the deceased. Exhibit P-3 is the post-mortem certificate. (vii) On 16-12-1982 at 11 a.m., P.W. 11 arrested the accused at Ayyanarappan Kovil Street in front of his house and recorded his statement. He seized M.O. 1 knife kept conealed in his waist, besides seizing his bloodstained shirt M.O. 8 and lungi M.O. 9 under the mahazar, Exhibit P-7 attested by P.W. 8. He brought the accused to the police station at 1 p.m. Since the accused was having injuries on his person, he sent him to the hospital for treatment. He seized M.O. 1 knife kept conealed in his waist, besides seizing his bloodstained shirt M.O. 8 and lungi M.O. 9 under the mahazar, Exhibit P-7 attested by P.W. 8. He brought the accused to the police station at 1 p.m. Since the accused was having injuries on his person, he sent him to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, in the evening he sent him to the Court for the purpose of remand(viii) The doctor P.W. 6 attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Erode, on receipt of the requisition from P.W. 11 examined the accused at 2.15 p.m. on 16-12-1982 for certain injuries said to have been caused to him by a known person at 4 p.m. on 13-12-1982 due to assault by a shaving blaide. He examined and treated the accused for the injuries. Exhibit P-4 is the copy of the accidents register. (ix) On 26-12-1982, P.W. 11 sent Exhibit P8 requisition to Court to send M.Os. 1 and 4 to 9 to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. P.W. 9, Headclerk attached to the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Erode, pursuant to Exhibit P-8 requisition received by Court, despatched the relevant material objects to the Chemical Examiner under the original of Exhibit P-9, office copy of the letter. Exhibits P10 and P11 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. (x) After completing the formalities of the investigation, P.W. 11 laid a report before the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Erode on 7-2-1983 under S. 173, Cr.P.C. for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by the accused. 3. Upon committal, the learned Sessions Judge, Erode, on perusal of the records, framed a charge under S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused. 4. The accused when questioned as respects the said charge framed against him, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in proof of the charge examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, filed Exhibits P-1 to P-14 and marked M.Os. 1 to 9. 6. The accused, when examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He would however state that he stabbed the deceased at the relevant time purely as a measure of defence of person, which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. 1 to 9. 6. The accused, when examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He would however state that he stabbed the deceased at the relevant time purely as a measure of defence of person, which unfortunately resulted in the death of the deceased. He did not choose to examine any witness on his side. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the defence, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated above, giving rise to this appeal. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would make three alternate submissions. They are :- (i) The material available on record is so scanty, it is not possible to mulct criminal liability upon the accused for any offence whatever (ii) Even in the extreme case of the Court coming to the conclusion that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for inflicting the stab on the deceased resulting in his death, even then the act of the accused in the circumstances of the case cannot be stated to be one not done in the exercise of the right of private defence of person; and. (iii) In any event, the act of the accused cannot at all be stated to be done with the requisite intention or knowledge of causing the death of the deceased and if at all, from the nature of the act committed by the accused, it may be inferred that he had the necessary intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. Let us endeavour to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel by sifting the material available on record. 9. The prosecution, in proof of its case, relied upon the testimony of the ocular witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3, besides the lending assurance factors provided by the medical testimony. Of the three eye-witnesses examined, excepting P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.W. 3 turned hostile wholesale to the prosecution. The net result is the evidence of P.W. 3 cannot at all be relied upon for any purpose whatever and the same has to be eschewed out of consideration. There remains the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 alone. 10. Of the three eye-witnesses examined, excepting P.Ws. 1 and 2, P.W. 3 turned hostile wholesale to the prosecution. The net result is the evidence of P.W. 3 cannot at all be relied upon for any purpose whatever and the same has to be eschewed out of consideration. There remains the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 alone. 10. P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the sister of the deceased. The mere fact that they are related to the deceased is not by itself a ground for rejecting their testimony, unless there are inherent infirmities and improbabilities to reject their testimony. Despite searching cross-examination, their evidence regarding the occurrence stood as a solid rock. Their evidence, if perused, would point out that it is not suffering from any infirmity of any material contradiction to doubt their version as regards the occurrence. That apart, their evidence is so natural, in the circumstances of the case. Their presence at the scene appears to be quite normal in the circumstances of the case. It cannot be stated that P.W. 1 and the deceased could not have gone to the house of P.W. 1 on the relevant date in question. It is normal in the course of human dealings that P.W. 1 and the deceased paid a courtesy visit to P.W. 2, who is the sister of the deceased. Such a courtesy visit does happen among relations in a routine way at frequent intervals. Only after taking lunch in the house of P.W. 2, P.W. 1 and the deceased along with P.W. 2 were returning to their house. Only on their return march, the occurrence had happened. As such, it is quite probable that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were available at the scene at the time when the occurrence had happened and they could have had the best of opportunity in witnessing the occurrence in its entirety. The version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 gets ample corroboration by the materials contained in the first information report, Exhibit P-1, which reached the portals of the police station within two and a half hours after the occurrence. 11. The medical testimony available on record in the shape of the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 5 coupled with Exhibit P-3 post-mortem. certificate also corroborates in ample measure, the version projected by the prosecution through the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 11. The medical testimony available on record in the shape of the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 5 coupled with Exhibit P-3 post-mortem. certificate also corroborates in ample measure, the version projected by the prosecution through the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The doctor opined that the injuries Nos. 1 to 3 as described in Exhibit P-3 could have been caused by infliction of stabs with a sharp-edged weapon like M.O. 1 and injury No. 4, being two small abrasions, could have been caused by a fall on any rough surface. Thus, on the face of the materials, we are thoroughly satisfied that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for inflicting the stabs on the deceased on the relevant date in question. 12. Coming to the right of private defence of person, the circumstance which impelled the accused to resort to stabbing the deceased purely as a measure of self-defence, though stated in the statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C., yet was not put to the ocular witnesses during the course of their cross-examination and what was put to the witness was that at the time of attack, the deceased was having in his possession a shaving blade, and with the aid of the same, he attempted to cause certain injuries on his person. The circumstances pleaded in the statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C. are :- "The deceased, at the relevant point of time, was coming along Subbiah Street. At that time, the accused was standing there at some distance. On sighting the accused, the deceased called him to come near him and the accused in turn without suspecting the bona fides of the call went near the deceased. The deceased with the aid of shaving blade caused an injury on the chest of the accused. The accused told the deceased, "You should not resort to such acts." Despite the same, the deceased caught hold of the hair of the accused with his left hand and again attempted to cut the neck of the accused with the shaving blade. The deceased with the aid of shaving blade caused an injury on the chest of the accused. The accused told the deceased, "You should not resort to such acts." Despite the same, the deceased caught hold of the hair of the accused with his left hand and again attempted to cut the neck of the accused with the shaving blade. The accused, placed in such a perilous situation, in a bid to save his life, inflicted certain stabs on the hand of the deceased with M.O. 1." * It is for the accused to prove the right of private defence as set up by him by at least preponderance of probabilities available in the case of the prosecution. The circumstances available in the case, we feel, can by no stretch of imagination, advance or improve the case of the defence to any extent whatever. 13. Though the accused and the deceased were friends, yet they parted company some three days prior to the occurrence by the previous incident that had happened by the staggering legs of the accused, as a result of intoxication got into contact with the deceased while he was playing DHAYAM by sitting in front of the house of Pappa. As a result of this incident, bad blood and rancour continued to exist in their minds. In such a situation, it is too much to believe the version of the accused when he says that he responded to the call of the deceased on the day in question and thereafter, the deceased put the accused in a perilous situation by his dastardly act of inflicting harm to him by means of a shaving blade. Though the accused was having certain injuries on his person, the injuries were only abrasions, as found described in Exhibit P-4. In order to better appreciate the theory of self-defence, it is better to pen down here the nature of the injuries sustained by the accused. They are :-(i) Oblique inflicted abrasion about 3. "in length over the upper part of the sternum; and (ii) Oblique inflicted abrasion about 1-1/2" * in length over the left side of neck. If really the accused was inflicted of these two injuries by means of a shaving blade, definitely the injuries inflicted by means of shaving blade could be incised wounds and not abrasions. "in length over the upper part of the sternum; and (ii) Oblique inflicted abrasion about 1-1/2" * in length over the left side of neck. If really the accused was inflicted of these two injuries by means of a shaving blade, definitely the injuries inflicted by means of shaving blade could be incised wounds and not abrasions. When the attention of the doctor, P.W. 6 had been drawn on this aspect of the matter, he categorically stated that the injuries found on the person of the accused are not possible by a shaving blade. He would further go and state that those injuries are possible by self-infliction. When the defence had thrown a suggestion to the doctor, P.W. 6 as to whether the incised wound inflicted with scab formation, if examined after three days, will look like an abrasion, he would categorically deny the same. On the face of such medical testimony, it is too much for the defence to contend that the injuries found on the person of the accused could have been caused in the mariner as suggested by him. As such, we have no option but to reject the plea of right of private defence of person as set up by the defence. 14. The next question that crops up for consideration is as to what is the offence committed by the accused. The injuries were inflicted with the weapon M.O. 1 on the left hand and left leg of the deceased. The doctor P.W. 5 found two injuries on the left upper arm and one injury on the left leg of the deceased. They are of the following description. (1) A penetrating cut injury in the front of left upper arm 1 "above the left cubital fossa through which the wound has pierced through the upper arm and has come out through the neck of left upper arm. Muscles and vessels severed and humerus bone broken. Size of injury 4"x 2" x depth about 4" * . Injury over the back of left upper arm due to penetration is of the size 1"x 1" and 1 "above the elbow;(2) A cut injury over the medial aspect of left upper arm 5" * x 1"x 2". Brackial artery is cut and muscles severed; and (3) A cut injury over the anterior aspect of the left leg 1" below left knee. Brackial artery is cut and muscles severed; and (3) A cut injury over the anterior aspect of the left leg 1" below left knee. Size 1-1/2"x 1" x 1/2." The portions of the body chosen by the accused, namely, hand and leg of the deceased can, by no stretch of imagination, be stated to be vulnerable portions of human anatomy. The weapon M.O. 1 is an ordinary pen knife and the same cannot be stated to be a lethal weapon. The accused had not chosen to inflict any injury on the vulnerable portions, namely, chest, abdomen etc., of the deceased. Taking into account the place chosen by the accused in inflicting the injuries and the weapon used, it cannot be stated that the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause the death of the deceased. From the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased as described above, it is but legitimate to infer that the accused intended or knew himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. A cursory perusal of the description of injury No. 1 would indicate the ferocity with which the stab had been inflicted by the accused The wound has pierced the upper arm, and had come out through the back of the left upper arm, after severing the muscles and vessels, besides causing fracture of humerus bone. Injury No. 2 actually cut the brackial artery resulting in the extravasation of the brackial artery, which was the cause of death. If the flow of blood from the brackial artery had been immediately arrested, the victim could have been saved. The accused, being a layman, not having any knowledge of the anatomical features of the human body could not be expected to have known the situation of the brackial artery so that he can be attributed with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause injury to the brackial artery resulting in the death of the deceased in such circumstances, we can safely come to the conclusion that the accused, if at all, could have had the intention or knowledge that his act was likely to cause grievous hurt to the victim, the deceased. As such, he can be mulcted with the liability for the offence under S. 326, I.P.C. and not under S. 302, I.P.C. as found by the Court below. Therefore, he is found guilty under S. 326, I.P.C. 15. As such, he can be mulcted with the liability for the offence under S. 326, I.P.C. and not under S. 302, I.P.C. as found by the Court below. Therefore, he is found guilty under S. 326, I.P.C. 15. Coming to the question of sentence, it is brought to our notice that the accused had been in prison right from the date of his conviction, namely, 12-4-1984. Practically, therefore, he had undergone the sentence of imprisonment for more than four and a half years. Therefor we feel that the ends of justice would be squarely met with by sentencing him to the period already undergone, in addition by imposing on him a nominal fine of Rs. 10/- to be paid by him within one month from the date of receipt of records by the Court below from this Court, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 16. In the result, the appellant-accused is found guilty under S. 326, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten only) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The fine amount is directed to be paid within one month from the date of the receipt of the records by the Court below from this Court. 17. Subject to the above modification, the appeal will stand dismissed in other respects.