Judgment : MARUTHAMUTHU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1985 dated 7. 11. 1985. The appellant stood charged, under section 302, I. P. C. on the allegation that on 24. 12. 1984 at or about 5. 45 p. m. at Sekkadi Bazaar in Vathrayiruppa Pudupatti, the appellant committed the murder of Sellakannu by stabbing him with a knife. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence charged, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is as follows: (i) On 24. 12. 1984, the general election for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was conducted. One front consisting of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (D. M. K.), Nedumaran Congress, Communist Pany of India and Marxist Communist and another front consisting of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (A. I. A. D. M. K.), Indira Congress and Gandhi-Kamaraj National Congress and a third front consisting of some other political parties contested the election. Udayasuriyan (P. W. 2) belonged to the Marxist Communist Party. The deceased Sellakannu belonged to D. M. K. Party for which he worked in the election. Kutty alias Innasimuthu (P. W. 1) and Paralogam (P. W. 4) belonged to D. M. K. party and worked for the front in which D. M. K. Party was an ally, Mudiyappan (P. W. 3) belonged to Left Communist Party. Seshukannu (P. W. 5) belonged to Communist Party India. The appellant was a volunteer of A. I. A. D. M. K. Pany. The appellant and P. Ws. 1 to 4 were busily engaging themselves in their campaign for election and canvassing votes for their respective fronts. The election office of the front consisting of D. M. K. party was located in Sekkadi Bazaar. Quarrels arose between the workers of the political parties during their campaign, particularly between P. W. 1 and the workers of his front on one side and the appellant on the other. The appellant quarreled with P. W. 5 who worked for the front consisting of D. M. K. Party and beat him with hand near the polling booth at Renuka School. People mediated and separated them. (ii) On 24. 12. 1984 morning, P. W. 2 had been to Vathrayiruppu. The appellant quarreled with P. W. 5 who worked for the front consisting of D. M. K. Party and beat him with hand near the polling booth at Renuka School. People mediated and separated them. (ii) On 24. 12. 1984 morning, P. W. 2 had been to Vathrayiruppu. He returned to Pudupatti and alighted from the bus in the evening. The appellant way-laid him and beat him at that time. P. W. 2 went straight to the election office and reported the incident to the deceased Sellakannu and P. Ws. 1 to 4 who were present there and went away. The appellant was proceeding from west to east and it was seen by P. W. 1. The appellant sat on the wooden plank in front of the bunk-shop of Muthu doctors son near the election office of P. Ws. 1 to 4 in Sekkadi Bazaar P. W. 2 questioned the appellant as to why he should beat P. W. 2 for no fault of his, for which the appellant replied arrogantly stating that he would beat only like that. Without stopping at it, the appellant re: moved his shirt, took out the knife (M. O. 1) from his waist and attempted to stab P. W. 3, P. W. 3 ran away towards west, out of fear. Then, the appellant came to the election office and remarked at the deceased Sellakannu who was sitting there that the deceased also joined others in talking against the appellant. So remarking, the appellant stabbed the deceased on his left flank and ran away with M. O. 1. P. Ws. 1 and 4 witnessed the occurrence. P. W. 1 applied his towel as a bandage to the injury which was bleeding. The deceased became unconscious. The police van with, P. W. 12, Karunakaran, Head Constable, arrived at the spot at 6. 00 P. M. In the van, the deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Vathrayiruppu immediately. But, the deceased Sellakannu was. 1 found dead at 6. 30 p. m. and he was removed from the police van. (iii) P. W. 1 gave statement (Ex. P1) to P. W. 12 at the Hospital. P. W. 12 registered a case in Crime No. 550 of 1985 under section 302, I. P. C. at Vathrayiruppu Police Station at 6. 45 p. m. He prepared the printed First Information Report (Ex. P13) and sent Ex. (iii) P. W. 1 gave statement (Ex. P1) to P. W. 12 at the Hospital. P. W. 12 registered a case in Crime No. 550 of 1985 under section 302, I. P. C. at Vathrayiruppu Police Station at 6. 45 p. m. He prepared the printed First Information Report (Ex. P13) and sent Ex. P1 and P13 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 1 Srivilliputhur through police constable, Nagarajan (P. W. 10 ). He sent copies of Exs. P1 and P13 to his superior officers. Nehru (P. W. 13), Inspector of Police, took up investigation of the case on receipt of a copy of Ex. P13. He inspected the scene of occurrence at Pudupatti at 7. 10 p. m. , prepared an observation mahazar (Ex. P7) and drew a rough sketch of the scene (Ex P14 ). He recovered the bloodstained earth (M. O. 7) and sample earth (M. O. 8) under a mahazar (Ex. P8) in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer (P. W. 7) and the Talayari (P. W. 8 ). The appellant was absconding. P. W. 13 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Vathrayiruppu on the next day (25. 12. 1984) and conducted inquest on the corpse of deceased Sellakannu between 6. 00 a. m. and 8. 00 a. m. and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P15) and examined P. Ws. 1 and 3 and others. He gave a requisition (Ex. P2) for conducting autopsy on the dead body which was in charge of police constable Uma Subramaniam (P. W. 9 ). (iv) Dr. Govardhan (P. W. 6) conducted autopsy at 10. 30 a. m. on 25. 12. 1984 and found the following external injury: A stab injury over the back of the left chest below the scapula 3 x 2 x 6. On internal examination, he found the lungs congested and the stab punctured on the left lobe. On opening of thorax, a stab injury between the 4th and 5th ribs was noticed. The liver and kidney were congested. P. W. 6 was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of traumatic asphyxia, haemorrhage and shock due to stab injury on the back of the chest. 15 to 18 hours prior to post-mortem. He added that the injury might have been caused by a sharp weapon like M. O. 1 and that the said injury was fatal. 15 to 18 hours prior to post-mortem. He added that the injury might have been caused by a sharp weapon like M. O. 1 and that the said injury was fatal. He further stated that the deceased might have died within 30 minutes after the infliction of the injury. Ex. P3 is the postmortem certificate issued by P. W. 6. P. W. 9 removed the half trouser (M. O. 2), the dhoti (M. O. 3), towel (M. O. 4), shirt (M. O. 5) and the rings (M. O. 6 series) from the corpse and delivered them at the police station. He handed over the corpse to the relations of the deceased. (v) On 25. 12. 1984 at 1. 00 p. m. P. W. 13 arrested the appellant in the electric motor room of Rajaram near Vannanpathai Odai in the presence of P. Ws. 7 and 8. When examined, the appellant made a confession statement voluntarily of which the admissible portion is Ex. PS offering to point out the place w here the knife was kept concealed by him and produced the same to P. W. 13. Accordingly, the appellant took P. W. 13 and his party to a place in mango tope bund and took out the knife (M. O. 1) kept inside the bush in between two palmyrah trees and produced it to P. W. 13. Ex. P6 is the mahazar prepared by P. W. 13 for that purpose. At 3. 15 p. m. , the appellant gave a complaint to P. W. 13 and it was registered as Crime No. 551 of 1984 under section 341 and 323, I. P. C. and investigated. P. W. 13 sent the appellant to P. W. 6 for examination of the injury alleged to have been caused on the appellant At 5. 15 P. M. , P. W. 6 examined the appellant and found on him an abrasion over the top of the head, said to have been caused by a known person at Pudupatti on 24. 12. 1984 at 5. 30 p. m. by a stick. P. W. 6 opined that the injury was simple and superficial. Ex. P4 is the accident register extract issued by P. W. 6. P. W. 13 referred the complaint of the appellant as mistake of fact and submitted a final report (Ex. P16) to the Magistrate. On 6. 1. 1985, he gave a requisition (Ex. P. W. 6 opined that the injury was simple and superficial. Ex. P4 is the accident register extract issued by P. W. 6. P. W. 13 referred the complaint of the appellant as mistake of fact and submitted a final report (Ex. P16) to the Magistrate. On 6. 1. 1985, he gave a requisition (Ex. P9), to the Magistrate to forward M. Os. 1, 3, 4, 5,7 and 8 to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and they were accordingly forwarded by Hariraman (P. W. 11), Head Clerk of that Court with the covering letter (Ex. Plo) of the Magistrate to the Chemical, Examiner. After analysis, the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P11) and the report of the Serologist (Ex. P12) were received by the Magistrate. On completion of investigation, P. W. 13 laid the charge-sheet against the appellant on 9. 1. 1985. ( 3 ) WHEN the appellant was examined under section 313, Cr. P. C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, he denied his complicity in the crime. He also denied that he made a confessional statement and produced M. O. 1 before P. W. 13. No defence witness was examined. ( 4 ) AFTER considering the evidence and the documents, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution, rejected the plea of the appellant, found the appellant guilty of the offence under section 302, I. P. C. as charged, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. The appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the said verdict. ( 5 ) MR. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the appellant contended that P. Ws. 1 and 4 who figured as eye-witnesses and whose evidence has been relied upon by the trial Judge, have deposed falsely with regard to the occurrence. He submitted that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 alone should not have been relied on in basing the conviction against the appellant as there could be several persons who could have witnessed the occurrence nearby and that the prosecution has not chosen to examine them as independent witnesses. He pointed out that P. Ws. 1 and 4 are related to the deceased and are interested in the prosecution and that their evidence should be rejected. He pointed out that P. Ws. 1 and 4 are related to the deceased and are interested in the prosecution and that their evidence should be rejected. He finally submitted that even if the prosecution case is admitted as true, the facts will be sufficient to bring the offence under section 304, Part II, I. P. C. and that the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I. P. C. is not sustainable. Mr. B. Sriramulu, the learned Public Prosecutor resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and contended that the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 4, the ocular witnesses, along with other materials and circumstances is sufficient to prove the allegation that the appellant is the assailant who caused the death of the deceased Sellakannu and that the conviction of the appellant under section 302, I. P. C. recorded by the trial Judge is correct and it is not liable to be disturbed. We heard the submissions of both sides on their respective contentions. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that on 24. 12. 1984 the general election for the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was conducted and that P. Ws, 1 to 5 belonging to various Political parties, but belonging to one front and the appellant belonging to AIADMK party which was one of the allies of another opposite front, campaigned in rivalry for their respective candidates in Pudupatti village. Even the fact that on that crucial date when polling was to take place, there were minor clashes and skirmishes between the party workers is not in dispute. To be specific, we find from the evidence that there were quarrels between the appellant who worked for the front consisting of AIADMK party and P. Ws. 2, 3 and 5 belonging to the opposite front and that they were not however serious. The evidence shows that whenever there were quarrels and clashes between the party workers they were mediated and separated by the general public. We are not concerned very much whether the assault alleged to have been made by the appellant on P. Ws. 2 and 5 with a view to stab him, are true or not as they are not the subject matter for decision in this case. We are not concerned very much whether the assault alleged to have been made by the appellant on P. Ws. 2 and 5 with a view to stab him, are true or not as they are not the subject matter for decision in this case. At the most, they will be relevant only to find out the background in which the occurrence of deceased Sellakannu being done to death on the evening of 24. 12. 1984, had taken place. However, the alleged chasing of P. W. 3 may have relevance, since it is the prelude to the occurrence. ( 7 ) THE allegation against the appellant is that he stabbed the deceased with the knife (M. O. 1) on his left flank and caused his death when the deceased was remaining in the election office of the front comprising of D. M. K. and other allied parties in Sekkadi Bazaar. It is stated that the appellant beat P. W. 2 after the later alighted from the bus at the bus stop of Pudupatti in the evening, that P. W. 2 complained to the deceased, P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and others who remained in the election office about the assault made by the appellant, that P. W. 3 questioned the appellant as to why he should assault P. W. 2 for no reason and that at that time the appellant chased P. W. 3 with a view to stab him with a knife. It is added that P. W. 3 ran away and escaped and that thereafter, the appellant directed his wrath against the other inmates in the election office. It was then that the deceased who was present along with P. Ws. 1 and 4 is said to have been stabbed by the appellant with M. O. 1. According to the prosecution, the appellant stabbed the deceased saying that he was also one among the persons who talked or worked against him. No other reason has been shown on the side of the prosecution for the attack made by the appellant on the deceased. ( 8 ) THIS aspect of the main allegation has been spoken by P. Ws. 1 and 4 who are ocular witnesses. They are quite consistent and uniform in their evidence that the appellant stabbed with the knife (M. O. 1) on the left flank of the deceased and that the deceased fell down unconscious. ( 8 ) THIS aspect of the main allegation has been spoken by P. Ws. 1 and 4 who are ocular witnesses. They are quite consistent and uniform in their evidence that the appellant stabbed with the knife (M. O. 1) on the left flank of the deceased and that the deceased fell down unconscious. There is no infirmity whatsoever in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 to view their testimony with disfavour. Of course, P. Ws. 1 and 4 are related to the deceased in the sense that the sister of the deceased has been married to P. W. 1 elder brothers son and that P. W. 4 is the meternal uncle of the deceased. But, it does not mean that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 should be rejected straightaway as interested in the prosecution. It is well settled that in the case of witnesses who are characterised as interested, the Court should examine their evidence with care and caution to exclude the possibility of false implication. If their evidence would otherwise be satisfactory and reliable, there would be nothing wrong in the Court acting on their evidence. If we examine the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 4 in that perspective, we have to hold that their evidence with regard to the occurrence is absolutely true. The circumstances that P. W. 1 was involved in four or five criminal cases and was convicted in a theft case, cannot be said to be a ground to reject his eye-witness account. As already observed, the Court has to test whether his evidence is true and reliable. In as much as P. Ws. 1 and 4 in the present case are said to have belonged to D. M. K. party which was an ally of the front opposite to the front consisting of AIADMK party of which the appellant is a member, it can be safely presumed that P. Ws. 1 and 4 were present in the election office at Pudupatti and they witnessed the occurrence. ( 9 ) IT is not the plea of the defence that the occurrence in which the deceased was attacked by the appellant happened elsewhere. P. W. 13 has seized the bloodstained earth only from near the election office which only confirms the prosecution version that the occurrence took place only there. ( 9 ) IT is not the plea of the defence that the occurrence in which the deceased was attacked by the appellant happened elsewhere. P. W. 13 has seized the bloodstained earth only from near the election office which only confirms the prosecution version that the occurrence took place only there. The non-examination of the shopkeepers, the workers in the shops and the residents who were near the scene of occurrence, is immaterial in this case and it does not arise in this case. The explanation on the side of the prosecution is that since it was polling day, shops and other establishment remained closed and none of the persons in the street came forward to figure as eyewitness to the occurrence. In the circumstance, the real question is whether the available evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4 is worthy of credence or not. We have to answer the question only in the affirmative. ( 10 ) THE fact that the appellant was the assailant has been mentioned in Ex. P1 given by P. W. 1 himself at the earliest and very soon after the occurrence. The occurrence has taken place at 5. 45 p. m. and Ex. P1 has been given to P. W. 12 at 6. 00 p. m. at Vathrayiruppu Government Hospital. P. W. 12 registered a case at 6. 45 p. m. The printed First Information Report (Ex. P13) along with Ex. P1 reached the Magistrate at Srivilliputhur at 8. 30 p. m. The distance between the police station and the Magistrates Court is 6 kilometres. Even here, it maybe noted that P. Ws. 1 and 4 were present in the election office and that they happened to witness the occurrence, has been clearly mentioned in Ex. P1. ( 11 ) THE deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Vathrayiruppu in a police van within about 15 minutes after the occurrence only with a view to save his life, if possible, but he has died on the way. The criticism that the deceased would have survived if he was given first-aid immediately in Pudupatti, does not deserve any consideration in the circumstances. The evidence of P. W. 6 shows that the injury sustained by the deceased was fatal as the stab injury had caused puncture on the left lobe and that the deceased had to die of traumatic asphyxia and haemorrhage. The evidence of P. W. 6 shows that the injury sustained by the deceased was fatal as the stab injury had caused puncture on the left lobe and that the deceased had to die of traumatic asphyxia and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, there was no question of saving the deceased by giving first-aid. ( 12 ) ANOTHER circumstance we find is that the appellant had been arrested on 25. 12. 1984, the next day after the occurrence and the weapon (M. O. 1) has been recovered by P. W. 13 in pursuance of the confession statement of the appellant. P. Ws. 7 and 8 who are respectively the Village Administrative Officer and Talayari and whose evidence is no liable to be rejected easily, would corroborate the evidence of P. W. 13 in this regard. The plea of the appellant made during his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. that he did not confess and that he did not produce M. O. 1 to P. W. 13, cannot be accepted as true. Here, the question whether the weapon with which the appellant stabbed the deceased is a vangi knife or sun knife, need not assume any proportion. Evidently, the weapon with which the appellant had actually stabbed the deceased has been seized as M. O. 1 and that is a knife. It does not matter whether it is called a vangi knife or sun knife. Added to it, we find that the Serologists report (Ex. P12) mentions that the bloodstains in M. O. 1 and the dress of the deceased (M. Os. 3,4 and 5) and M. O. 7, the bloodstained earth recovered from the scene, are all of B group of human blood. This only leads to presume that M. O. 1 was the knife with which the appellant attacked the deceased and caused his death. ( 13 ) THE injury on the top of the head of the appellant cannot be altogether ignored as of no significance. This injury must have been sustained at or about the time of occurrence, in which the deceased was injured. The fact remains as admitted by P. W. 13, the investigating officer, that on the complaint of the appellant he registered Crime No. 551 of 1984 under sections 341 and 324, I. P. C. against P. W. 3. This injury must have been sustained at or about the time of occurrence, in which the deceased was injured. The fact remains as admitted by P. W. 13, the investigating officer, that on the complaint of the appellant he registered Crime No. 551 of 1984 under sections 341 and 324, I. P. C. against P. W. 3. The appellant had told the Doctor (P. W. 6) that he had sustained the injury found on him due to an attack with a stick by a known person at Pudupatti at 5. 30 p. m. on 24. 12. 1984. Though the injury is simple and superficial, it is on the head. The possibility of the injury having been sustained due to a beating with stick had not been ruled out, though P. W. 6 would speak of other hypothetical possibilities. The appellant was examined on the day next to occurrence. The case of the accused will have to be considered on preponderance of probability and strict proof similar to the onus cast on the prosecution, will not be necessary. The complaint of the accused has also not been produced by the prosecution. It is possible to conclude on the totality of evidence that P. W. 3 must have participated in the occurrence in which the deceased was attacked by the appellant. ( 14 ) THE materials available in this case clearly show that it is the appellant who is the author of the crime. We told that it is the appellant who was the assailant in causing the death of the deceased Sellakannu. Coming to the nature of offence committed by the appellant, we are unable to hold that it is one of murder. The facts of the case show that the appellant had no intention or premeditation La kill the deceased. ft was P. W. 3, who went over to the place, where the appellant was seated and picked up a quarrel with him. It appears odd that the appellant stabbed the deceased for no cause and without any ostensible reason. The deceased and P. W. 3 had obviously initiated the altercation, on the complaint of P. W. 2. It has not been shown that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellant and that the latter had motive. It appears odd that the appellant stabbed the deceased for no cause and without any ostensible reason. The deceased and P. W. 3 had obviously initiated the altercation, on the complaint of P. W. 2. It has not been shown that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellant and that the latter had motive. Thus, the attack made by the appellant on the deceased appears to be too sudden in the heat of passion, during the course of a quarrel in which in all probability he was attacked on his head with a stick by P. W. 3. Evidently the appellant has dealt only a single stab which has unfortunately proved final. On facts, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to cause the very injury found on the victim. In the circumstances, the appellant must be deemed to have had no intention to murder, but must be attributed knowledge that by his act, death was likely to be caused. Therefore, No hold that the offence will come under section 304, Part II. I. P. C. and not under section 302, I. P. C. ( 15 ) IN the result the appellant is found guilty of the offence under section 304, Part II. I. P. C. instead of section 302, I. P. C. The Conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302. I. P. C. arc set aside. Instead the appellant is convicted under section 304, Part II. I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the modified conviction. Subject to the above modification in the conviction and the consequent sentence, this appeal shall stand dismissed. Appeal partly allowed.