JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. The sole accused in SC 23 of 1986 of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam is the appellant. He was charged under S.302 of the I.P.C. for causing the death of Mathew alias Kutty on 9-1-1986 at about 8 p.m. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under S.302 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case is that when the accused used abusive words Mathew alias Kutty (P. W. 2's father) approached him and advised him to refrain from doing so and inflamed by this the accused took out M.O.4 knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest below the nipple and that when he fell down the accused gave him another stab on his back. Immediately P. Ws 1 and 2 removed P. W. 2's father to the hospital. The doctor after examination pronounced him deed. The First Information statement was lodged by P. W. 2. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13, marked Exts. P1 to P7 and identified M. Os. 1 to 7. Accused while questioned under S.313 Cr. P.C. denied his complicity with the crime. 3. Prosecution mainly relies on the ocular evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 5. Though P. W. 1 turned hostile to the prosecution, portion of his evidence is also relied on by the prosecution to prove the incident as alleged by the prosecution. 4. P. W. 2, son of the deceased was sitting in the pan shop of P. W. 8. He heard the accused uttering abusive words in front of a toddy shop. On the opposite side there is an arrack shop. P. W. 2 deposed that he saw his father (deceased) asking the accused why he was scolding the people. According to P. W. 1, accused used abusive words against the deceased and stated that even if he used abusive words, nothing would happen to him. It is the evidence of P. W. 2 that the accused took out a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his chest and that when he fell down another stab was inflicted on his left shoulder. P. W. 2 rushed towards his father. By the time, the accused ran away from there. It is the evidence of P. W. 2 that the accused took out a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his chest and that when he fell down another stab was inflicted on his left shoulder. P. W. 2 rushed towards his father. By the time, the accused ran away from there. P. W. 2 went to police station on the next day at 7 a.m. and lodged the first Information Statement Ext. P1. 5. P. W. 5 whose house is shown as just south of the road in the plan, has supported the evidence of P.W.1 in all material particulars. The attack on the evidence of P. W. 5 is that he was not questioned during the inquest and that he did not care to render any help when Mathew sustained injuries. It has to be noted that P. W. 5 was questioned by the police without any delay. Merely because P.W.5 was not questioned during the inquest prosecution case does not become susceptible to suspicion particularly in view of the fact that the inquest was conducted in the hospital away from the place of occurrence. There is no evidence that P. W. 5 was present during the inquest and yet he was not questioned by the Police. Hence the attack on the evidence of P W. 5 on the aforesaid ground deserves only to be ignored Failure on the part of P. W. 5 to render any help to the deceased cannot be considered as a circumstance to disbelieve his testimony as it is in evidence that his son (P W. 2) was there along with P. W. 1 to render immediate assistance. P. W. 1 stated that he bandaged the wound on the body of P. W. 2's father. Moreover, P W. 1, P. W. 2 and another removed the injured g person to the hospital immediately. In view of this evidence P. W.5's testimony cannot be assailed on the ground that he is bent upon propping up a false case against the accused. 6. The evidence of P. W. 2 is strenuously attacked on the ground that he could not have seen the incidental all. P. W. 2's evidence is that he went to P. W. 8's shop and purchased cigarette and sat on a bench and was smoking it. 6. The evidence of P. W. 2 is strenuously attacked on the ground that he could not have seen the incidental all. P. W. 2's evidence is that he went to P. W. 8's shop and purchased cigarette and sat on a bench and was smoking it. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if that be so, P. W. 2 could not have seen the stabbing incident. It is contended that P W. 8's evidence would show that he was not in the shop and so the presence of P. W. 2 there can never be believed. P.W.2 in cross examination stated that P. W. 8's brother George closed the shop at about 7. 40 p m. This evidence of P. W. 2 is sufficient to show that in the shop P.W 8's brother was present. P. W. 2 cannot be characterised as a chance witness as bis house is in the neighbourhood. Evidence of P. W. 2 in its entirety unfolds a consistent and honest version before the Court. That evidence is amply corroborated by P. W. 5 who resides near the place of occurrence. 7. It is next contended that there was no sufficient light at the place of occurrence and hence the evidence of eye witnesses if unreliable. It is pointed out that P.W. 10. lineman of the Electricity Board was on leave on that day and there is no satisfactory evidence as to who lighted the street light on that particular day. P. W. 10 stated that on 11-1-1986 when he inspected to found that the tube light was in good condition. PWs 1 to 5 deposed about the existence of tube light burning at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 denied the suggestion in cross examination that there was not street light at the place of occurrence since one month prior to the incident. Such a suggestion is conspicuously absent when P.W. 10 cross examined. There is evidence that apart from the tubelight at the place of occurrence there was also light in the toddy shop and that the entire incident could be witnessed wish the help of those lights. In view of the above evidence, the contention that there was no sufficient light and that, the prosecution witnesses have perjured before the Court is untenable. 8. Another contention is that the deceased sustained injuries in a melee as disclosed from the medical evidence. In view of the above evidence, the contention that there was no sufficient light and that, the prosecution witnesses have perjured before the Court is untenable. 8. Another contention is that the deceased sustained injuries in a melee as disclosed from the medical evidence. It is submitted that several abrasions were found on the body of the deceased apart from the two stab injuries and as there is no proper explanation with regard to the same prosecution version of the incident as narrated by the witnesses cannot be accepted as true. The post mortem certificate shows that the deceased had some abrasions on his body (injuries Nos. 3 to 9) apart from injuries 1 and 2 which were incised wounds. PW. 6 doctor who conducted autopsy opined that injuries 3 to 9 (abrasions) could have been caused by a fall face downwards. It is in evidence that the deceased fell down when the accused stabbed him Injuries 3 to 9 being abrasions could have been caused during a fall and also in the process of the body being removed to the vehicle. As injuries 3 to 9 have been properly explained by the prosecution and as there cannot be any iota of doubt about it, the defence contention fails totally. The learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the defence contention that the prosecution failed to explain the abrasions found on the body of the deceased and that by itself is solely sufficient to discard the prosecution case. 9. Another criticism levelled against the prosecution is that in the First Information Statement names of the eye witnesses have not been mentioned by P W. 2 and that is a sufficient factor to hold that entire incident has not been placed truthfully before the Court. On account of the death of P W. 2's father he was evidently perturbed and so in such a situation if he failed to narrate the names of the eye witnesses, it cannot be taken as a circumstance to view the prosecution case with suspicion. Hardly there is any inconsistency as between the First Information Statement and P W. 2's evidence before the Court. P.W. 5 adduced corroborative evidence which has a ring of truth in it. The attack on P. W. 5's evidence is that deceased was a driver of his brother and so he is interested in the prosecution. Hardly there is any inconsistency as between the First Information Statement and P W. 2's evidence before the Court. P.W. 5 adduced corroborative evidence which has a ring of truth in it. The attack on P. W. 5's evidence is that deceased was a driver of his brother and so he is interested in the prosecution. That by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve his testimony. 10. Learned defence counsel next contended that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, the offence will not come under S.302 of the I. P. C. He submitted that during a drunken brawl the incident happened and as it happened abruptly and in a sudden fight and without any premeditation, the offence would at best come under S.304 part I of the I. P. C. It is argued that Exception 4 to S.300 of the I. P. C. is attracted. There is no merit in the above contention as there is no evidence to hold that the incident happened during a fight between the parties. Hardly there is evidence of any confrontation between the deceased and the accused. Deceased only passively advised the accused to refrain from abusing people there. 11. To invoke Exception 4 to S.300, four requirements must be essentially satisfied, namely, (i) there was a sudden fight; (2) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In a case where the occurrence had taken place in a sudden and unpremeditated manner and the offender acted in a fit of anger he having not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, Exception 4 to S.300 is attracted and in such a case the offence is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case there is no evidence at all to hold that there was any fight between the accused and the deceased: Apart from that, there is evidence that the accused acted in a cruel manner taking undue advantage of the position that he was armed with a dangerous weapon whereas the deceased was unarmed. 12. The medical evidence would show that deceased had sustained incised penetrating injury on his chest which proved to be very fatal. 12. The medical evidence would show that deceased had sustained incised penetrating injury on his chest which proved to be very fatal. The testimony of the ocular witnesses would show that the accused stabbed the deceased on his chest and when the deceased stumbled down the former stabbed the latter again. As held in Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1972 SC 2574 ) when a person causes an injury on a vital part of the body, the intention to kill can be attributed to him. When serious injury has been caused on a vital part with a dangerous weapon, it must necessarily lead to the inference that the accused intended to kill the deceased. There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that the offence would not come under S.302 of the I.P.C., but it would only be a lesser offence under the Code. 13. The evidence in the case would clearly show that the accused stabbed the deceased below the nipple with considerable force and he a ain stabbed the victim when he was fallin down. The intention of the accused was nothin but to cause the death of the victim. The learned Sessions Jud e was perfectly justified in findin the accused uilty under S.302 of the I.P.C. On a consideration of the entire evidence, we hardly find any reason to interfere. The conviction and sentence a ainst the appellant (accused) are hereby confirmed. The Appeal is dismissed.