Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The accused, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, came forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are: (i) The accused is a resident of Edanganasalai Meyyannur Kattuvalavu within the jurisdiction of Magudanachavadi Police Station. One Chinnakannu (since deceased), a native of Kadaiyampati Kattuvalavu was given in marriage to the accused as his second wife, three years prior to the occurrence, which happened on 14.8.1982. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.3 is the mother of the accused. P.W.4 is the pangali of the accused. The deceased is the grand-daughter of the uncle of P.W.2. P.W.5 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. (ii) The matrimonial life of the deceased was far from happy after one and half years of her marriage. There were frequent quarrels between the spouses. The deceased therefore very often took shelter and asylum in her parent’s house at Kadaiyampatti. However, the deceased was blessed with a female child. Sometime prior to the occurrence, as a result of the quarrel between the spouses the deceased as usual went and stayed with parents. (iii) At 8 a.m. on theday of occurrence, the accused went to the house of his mother-in-law and entreated her to send his wife, the deceased along with him. His mother-in-law, wife of P.W.1, told the accused that her daughter, the deceased, was having a bad spell of time according to her horoscope and therefore, it would be better for him to take her after a month. But the deceased herself volunteered to go along with the accused to take back her sarees and clothes and to return on the same day. (iv) The quirk of fate would have it that immediately on reaching home, the spouses quarreled with each other. At that time, they were all alone in the house. During the course of the quarrel, the accused seizing the kuthukol, M.O.4 inflicted certain stabs on the person of the deceased. On hearing the hue and cry emerging from inside the house, P.Ws.3 and 4 and others tapped the door. The accused emerged out of the house with M.O.4 in his hand and ran away from there. The victim deceased was transported to Government Hospital, Vembadithalam in a bid to save her life. (v) The doctor P.W.7 attached to the said hospital examined her at 11.45 a.m. and gave her initial treatment. The accused emerged out of the house with M.O.4 in his hand and ran away from there. The victim deceased was transported to Government Hospital, Vembadithalam in a bid to save her life. (v) The doctor P.W.7 attached to the said hospital examined her at 11.45 a.m. and gave her initial treatment. He referred her for further and better treatment to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Salem. Ex.P3 is the wound certificate. He opined that the injuries found on the person of the victim could have been caused by infliction of stabs with a weapon like M.O.4. He sent the accident intimation, Ex.P17 to the Police. (vi) P.W.19, Grade I Constable attached to Magunanchavadi Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P17 at 12.15 p.m. rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement, Ex.P21 from the victim. He returned to the police station and registered the same in Crime No.99/82 under Sec. 324, I.P.C. (vii) The accused met P.W.2 at Kazhikattanur Bus Stand. P.W.2 enquired the accused about the purpose for which he had come there. The accused unburdened himself by narrating what had happened. He told him that in the quarrel between him and his wife, he stabbed her and skulked away from the house. Repenting for what he had done, he had also expressed that in case his wife died, he would also end his life. (viii) P.W.6, Judicial First Class Magistrate No.II, Salem, pursuant to the requisition he received, went to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Salem and recorded the dying declaration from the victim, after observing all formalities between 3.25 and 3.45 p.m. in the presence of the doctor P.W.15, who affixed the certificate. Ex.P18 that the victim was quite conscious at the time of recording her declaration. Ex.P2 is the dying declaration. (ix) P.W.20, Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this case. He went to the scene village at 4 p.m. and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P22. He seized from the scene M.Os. 7 to 11 under Ex.P23. Exs.P22 and P23 were attested by P.Ws.9 and 10. He drew a rough sketch Ex.P24 of the occurrence. He then went to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Salem and seized from the victim M.Os.1 to 3 under Ex.P10 attested by P.W.11. He searched for the accused and he was absconding. 7 to 11 under Ex.P23. Exs.P22 and P23 were attested by P.Ws.9 and 10. He drew a rough sketch Ex.P24 of the occurrence. He then went to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Salem and seized from the victim M.Os.1 to 3 under Ex.P10 attested by P.W.11. He searched for the accused and he was absconding. (x) On 20.8.1982 at 9 a.m. he arrested the accused near Ilampillai Bus stand in the presence of P.W.12 The accused gave a voluntary confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P11. Pursuant to the confession, the accused took them to the backyard of the house of his father and produced M.O.4 kept concealed underneath the pile of heap of withered sugarcaneleaves and it was seized under Ex.P12 mahazar. Exs.P11 and P12 were attested by P.W.12. (xi) The deceased died at the hospital at 3 p.m. on 26.8.1982. On receipt of the death intimation, Ex.P20 through P.W.18, P.W.20 altered the case into one under Sec.302, I.P.C. and sent express reports to all concerned officials through P.W.16. Ex.P19 is the express F.I.R. sent to Court. (xii) P. W.21, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the express F.I.R. took up further investigation in the case. He verified the investigation done by P.W.20 by inspecting the scene village. He went to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Salem on 27.9.1982 and held inquest over the body of the deceased. He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 during inquest. Ex.P25 is the inquest report. He caused photographs of the corpse to be taken by P.W.13 from different angles. M.O.5 series are the photographs and M.O.6 series are the negatives. P.W.21 despatched the body for the purpose of autopsy through P.W.17 along with Ex.P4 requisition. (xiii) P.W.8, the doctor attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Salem conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased at 2 p.m. Ex.P5 is the Post-mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died 22 to 24 hours prior to autopsy due to septicemia. (xiv) P.W.21 sent Ex.P13 requisition to Court to send the incriminating articles to the Chemical Examiner for purpose of analysis. P.W.14, the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Sankari sent those articles to the Chemical Examiner as per the directions of the Magistrate, under the original of Ex.P14, office copy of the letter, Exs.P15 and P16 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. P.W.14, the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Sankari sent those articles to the Chemical Examiner as per the directions of the Magistrate, under the original of Ex.P14, office copy of the letter, Exs.P15 and P16 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. (xv) P.W.21, on completing the formalities of the investigation laid a report before the Judicial Second Class Magistrates, Sankari on 9.11.1982 under Sec.173, Cr.P.C. for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by the accused. 3. Upon committal, the learned Sessions. Judge, Salem framed a charge under Sec.302, I.P.C. against the accused. The accused when questioned as respects the charge framed against him, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in proof of the said charge, examined P.Ws.1 to 21, filed Exs.P1 to P25 and marked M.Os.1 to 11. 5. The accused, when examined under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He did not choose to examine any witness on his side. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, giving rise to this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the materials available on record, if perused with proper care and caution would point out the act of the accused, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be stated to-be on falling under anyone of the clauses of Sec.300, I.P.C., punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C., as had been done by the Court below and if at all it would fall under Clause 8 of Sec.320, I.P.C., punishable under Sec.326,I.P.C. 8. The fact that the accused inflicted certain stabs on the person of the deceased, his wife, on the day in question, leading toner death after twelve days in the Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Salem admits of no doubt. The evidence P.W.5 coupled with the dying declaration Ex.P2 recorded by the Magistrate P.W.6 after the observation of all formalities, when the deceased was fully conscious clinchingly proves that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for inflicting the stabes on the person of the deceased as found vividly described in Ex.P3 issued by the Doctor P.W.7, who first treated her. 9. 9. Further the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to P.W.2 at the time when he happened to meet him at Kozhikattanur bus stand also serves as a corroborative piece of evidence pointing out the hand of the accused in stabbing the deceased. 10. The moot question that now falls for consideration is as to what is the offence that had been committed by the accused. A cursory perusal of the wound certificate, Ex.P3 would reveal two aspects. All the injuries, numbering five had been inflicted on the non-vulnerable portions of human anatomy, namely back thigh and right thumb besides these injuries, though incised, are of minor dimensions. From the seat of the injuries, it is pretty certain that the accused neither intended to cause the death of the deceased nor could have had the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death of the deceased. Nor can it be said that this act is so imminently dangerous that in all probability is likely to cause death. But, at the same time, it cannot be stated that the hurt caused as a result of the infliction of the stabs on the person of the deceased cannot be endangering the life of the deceased, in the circumstances of the case. It is only with a view to save the life of the deceased surgical intervention had been made and this is explicit by the presence of injury No.6 on the umbilical region, which is a surgical one. Pertinent it is to point out here that the deceased died of septicemia after 12 days from the date of occurrence. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the act of the accused would fall under Clause 8 of Sec.320, I.P.C., punishable under Sec.326, I.P.C. as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant under Sec.302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him by the Court below are not sustainable in law. 11. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below on the appellant-accused under Sec.302, I.P.C., are set aside and instead, he is found guilty under Sec.326, I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. 12. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.