K. NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal from Jail by accused appellant Sri Kant Pathak son of Deochand Pathak is directed against his conviction under Section 304, I. P. C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur by an order dated 23-11-1977 in S. T. No. 131 of 1977. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the conviction and appeal may briefly be narrated as under : there was some altercation between the accused Sri Kant Pathak and one Pradip son of Teju kamkar in the presence of his sister Km. Sumitra Kumari wherein Sri Kant is said to have given some beating to Pradip under an impression that Pradip had stolen some of his grains. Kesho prasad and Kirshna Mohan Giri and some other lads intervened and got Pradip released. Coming to know of this incident, wife of Teju and mother of Pradip went to the house of Sri Kant after some time to protest against the action of Sri Kant. There was some exchange of hot words and in the meanwhile Smt. Sunri, an aunt of Kesho Prasad uttered a sentence maru Re Chandra deoua Ke Doglawa Ke Man Barh Gail Ba, meaning that bastard son of Chandra Deo had become very proud and he be beaten. The accused is the son of Chandra Deo. Upon this, the accused is said to have gone inside the house and came back with a Gandasa and holding Smt. Sunri assaulted in her neck causing her death almost instantaneously. The others standing thereby got frightened and could not catch hold of him. ( 3 ) A first information report conveying the above facts was lodged at the police station by kesho Prasad, who was also later examined as PW 1, at about 13. 30 hours the same day, that is, an hour and a half after the occurrence, the distance of the police station being six miles. It was also shown later in the evidence that even before the first information report was lodged at the police station, another Sub Inspector of Police, namely, PW 5 Prebhunath Singh happened to be there on his way back from some other place and the weapon of attack Gandasa was recovered or discovered at the instance of accused in his presence. After report, investigation was taken up by pw 8 Dina Nath Dubey, Sub Inspector, who was then Station Officer and by the time he reached the spot, the above said recovery or discovery had already taken place. He proceeded with the usual inquest and sent the body for post mortem examination and also interrogated the witnesses. ( 4 ) THE prosecution had examined 14 witnesses in all. Out of these, we are more concerned with the statements of PW 1 Kesho Prasad, PW 2 Smt. Rikhmuniya and PW 7 Smt. Lilawati, who were examined as witnesses of the occurrence and the statement of PW 4 Dr. P. C. Srivastava, who had conducted the post mortem examination. In brief it may be mentioned that PW 1 Kesho prasad and PW 7 Smt. Lilawati had supported the story put forward by the prosecution while PW 2 Smt. Rikhmuniya declined to give any evidence and stated that by the time she came from the fields to the house of Sri Kant, Smt. Sunri was already dead and what she saw was her body lying at the spot under a cover of some sheet. ( 5 ) IT was argued on behalf of the appellant that she being the main witness, her statement to the effect that she had not seen anything in the nature of occurrence should wash away the prosecution case as a matter of fact. We are afraid this cannot be so easily accepted. It is true that she was one of the witnesses mentioned by the prosecution as a person who had seen the occurrence and did not support the earlier part of the occurrence when it commenced, but at the same time if she does not want to give any evidence, it would not undo what had already happened. The main thing to be seen is whether she was falsely kept as a witness or she is wrongly refusing to state what under law she should have done. She is the mother of Pradip and she stated that Pradip had told her that he was given a beating by Pathak. The main thing to be seen is whether she was falsely kept as a witness or she is wrongly refusing to state what under law she should have done. She is the mother of Pradip and she stated that Pradip had told her that he was given a beating by Pathak. Pradip and for that matter his sister and mother are absolutely unconcerned and there is no occasion of these facts coming to the knowledge of Kesho Prasad or anybody else unless there was other part of the occurrence also, that is, she had gone to make a protest about it to the house of Pathak. Her denial that she had not gone for this purpose and came later, is simply a won over testimony. She was confronted with her statement to the Investigating Officer and though she has denied to have ever given such statement, we are not inclined to disbelieve the Investigating Officer in this behalf. Not only that, she also admitted that Pradip had received injuries. It is evident from the statement of PW 3 Dr. H. S. Singh that Pradip was also medically examined. Ordinarily people are not medically examined after such minor incident on a beating of a lad by an elderly fellow. Unless he was connected with the facts of this trial in appeal, there could not be any occasion for such medical examination. Unfortunately the State counsel appearing there had not put these facts in the cross-examination and much value cannot be attached to them. In any case, the conclusion remains that this witness was not deposing the truth, may before the suggested fear of brahman. ( 6 ) WE have carefully gone through the evidence of PW 1 Kesho Prasad and PW 7 Smt. Lilawati along with the learned counsel for the appellant and we see no good reason to discard their testimony. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant has been to the effect that according to the evidence of PW 1 Kesho Prasad at least three and may be four blows of gandasa were given to the deceased while there was only one incised wound. This suggestion was also put to PW 4, Dr. P. C. Srivastava when he was in the witness box and he was of the opinion that looking to the injury it could have been caused even by three blows. This suggestion was also put to PW 4, Dr. P. C. Srivastava when he was in the witness box and he was of the opinion that looking to the injury it could have been caused even by three blows. Apart from this, when a person strikes the other spectators are not supposed to count the blows nor it can be certain that every blow that was moved did strike the victim. When a man gives blow the victim always tries to save himself, and that is the natural instinct and when it comes to the saving of life, the victims are able to do wonders. In view of this position again it cannot be said that the witness could be disbelieved only for this reason. ( 7 ) WE may also mention that in this case, there is no bad blood between the accused and the informant or Smt. Lilawati. If there is anything it is on account of and after the death of Smt. Sunri and so long this alone is the reason, it will be a valid reason for giving evidence and not a reason for false implication. To say that he is interested only because he happens to be a newphew of the deceased will be putting cart before the horse. He is not going to get back his aunt by giving evidence against the accused. If he wants the law to avenge against the accused because he had committed a wrong, he is interested in due compliance of law and would not be rendered unwrothy of credit for that interest. The interest of a witness is itself to be seen with its purpose. ( 8 ) IT was also urged on behalf of the appellant that Smt. Lilawati was not named earlier. It is true that she was not mentioned in the first information report by name but the presence of ladies was there and she was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The first information report is not a plaint or a list of witnesses to be attached to it. In fact, it may very often happen that informant may not be even knowing the presence of witnesses and they have to be worked out during investigation. ( 9 ) IT was also urged on behalf of the appellant that this discovery of Gandasa at the instance of the accused appellant was not admissible in evidence. In fact, it may very often happen that informant may not be even knowing the presence of witnesses and they have to be worked out during investigation. ( 9 ) IT was also urged on behalf of the appellant that this discovery of Gandasa at the instance of the accused appellant was not admissible in evidence. After having gone through the memo in this behalf Ex Ka 5 and the statement of PW 5 Prabhunath Singh we have least hesitation in saying that it could not be said to be discovered at the instance of the accused appellant. We are also quite clear that the so-called confession recorded in this document and sought to be proved by the Sub-Inspector Prabhunath Singh could be only a confession to a police officer without any discovery and consequently it will not be admissible in evidence but that by itself would not make such difference as the offence against the appellant is too well proved by the other evidence. ( 10 ) THE last argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant was severity of sentence. There appears force in this contention that the sentence of life imprisonment for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is rather too hard. The state of circumstances in which the offence has been committed as mentioned are that an elderly lady simply called the accused to be a bastard which is not an abuse for the accused only but also to his mother and he felt enraged on it, there was no wonder. This being a mitigating circumstance, the sentence deserves to be reduced. He has already been in jail for more than 14 years. His sentence should at least be reduced to the sentence already undergone. ( 11 ) THE appeal is partly allowed maintaining the conviction Under Section 304, I. P. C. recorded by the Sessions Judge, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. The accused appellant shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. .