Judgment : The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. for allegedly causing the death of Perumal by stabbing him with a knife on his chest. He was also charged for the offence punishable under Sec.307 (later part) of the I.P.C. for stabbing Devaraj with a knife on his head and right hand and he was further charged for the offence punishable under Sec.307 (later part) of the I.P.C. for stabbing Santha with a knife on her chest. The prosecution examined P. Ws.l to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P13 and M.Os.l to 8. The accused has examined Eswaran Police Constable as D.W.1 and marked Ex.R.l on his side. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Secs.304, Part I and 324, I.P.C. (2 counts) and sentenced him under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and sentenced the accused under Sec.324, I.P.C. (2 counts) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count. The trial court also directed the sentences to run concurrently. The trial Court found the accused not guilty under Secs.302 and 303 (later part) I.P.C. (2 counts) and acquitted him. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 112. 1985 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused with an intention of causing the death of Perumal (deceased) stabbed him and also stabbed Devaraj D.W.I and Santha P.W.2 and as a result Perumal succumbed to the injury but Devaraj and Santha survived P.W.1 Devaraj is the father of P.W.2 Santha. They were residing at Thennaimara Street, Arukantham-poondi. The adult accused Munusamy (appellant) herein and his son juvenile accused Raja (not an accused in this case) are also residing in the same street and they are all neighbours. There is a wall separating the houses of adult accused and his son the juvenile accused and the houses of P. Ws.l and 2. The house of Kannammal is situated on the northern side of Thennaimara Street. In the property of Kannammal there were a cattle shed on eastern side and also a vacant site and adjacent to it there was also another cattle shed and on the west of it there was a residential hut also. Kannammal was residing on the extreme western but and to east of it there were two cattled sheds. In the property of Kannammal there were a cattle shed on eastern side and also a vacant site and adjacent to it there was also another cattle shed and on the west of it there was a residential hut also. Kannammal was residing on the extreme western but and to east of it there were two cattled sheds. About three months prior to December, 1985 Kannammal had settled her property in favour of Raja son of the appellant herein. P.W.1 Devaraj is the brother of the appellant herein. The deceased Perumal is the son of P.W.1. Even though P.W.l’s son is a grandson to Kannammal, she did not give any property to P.W.1 son. On 210. 1985 P.W.1 gave a petition to P.W.14 Subramaniam under Ex.P-1 stating that the property of Kannammal had to be divided. P.W.14 called out Kannammal and examined her about the dispute for which Kannammal told P.W.14 that it was her absolute property and that she had already given the same to the children of the appellant herein. On 211. 1985 there was a panchayat and Ex.P-14 memorandum was prepared in which P.W.14 obtained the signature of both the parties. In the two cattle sheds belonging to Kannammal the parties of the accused were tying their cattle on the eastern cattle shed and the P.W.1 and his party were tying cattle in the western shed. Due to the settlement made by Kannammal in favour of the juvenile accused Raja and subsequent to the panchayat there was a misunderstanding between P.W.1 on the one side and the accused appellant herein on the other side. Even after the settlement and the panchayat P.W.1 was tying his cattle on the western shed and due to this there were frequent quarrels between P.W.1 and his brother the appellant herein and neighbours used to compromise the parties. On 18.121985 at about 8.30 p.m. P.W. put on the light at the threshold of his house and P.W.1 asked his son Perumal the deceased herein to tie the cattle in the shed and at that time Perumal was holding a torch light in his hand and the accused asked him as to who was lighting with the battery For which P.W.1 told that deceased was showing the battery light in his shed only and not in the shed belonging to the accused. The accused told him P.W.1 retorted by saying At this stage when the P.W.1 and the accused were abusing each other, the juvenile accused was standing near the appellant herein and the juvenile accused took out M.O.2 brick bat and threw it on the left shoulder of P.W.l and P.W.1 cried On hearing this noise P.W.8 Raju and his son Jayaraman and others rushed to the place and P. W.l’s daughter P.W.2 also came running to that place. The appellant took out M.O.3 knife from his house and he pushed P.W.1 on the ground and then stabbed on the left hand and head of P.W.1. The spectacle M.O.1 owned by P.W.l feel down and it was broken to pieces. P.W.2 came running by stating that her father was stabbed and the appellant stabbed P.W.2 on her left side of the body with M.O.3 knife. On hearing this Perumal without even tying the cattle in the shed came running to the place. When the deceased Perumal was standing near P.W.2 the accused stabbed him on his chest with M.O.3 knife by saying Thereafter the accused ran away towards north and P.W.1 chased him and the accused slipped with a stone and he fell down opposite to the house of Kannan. P.W.1 ran after the accused and caught hold of him. Then there was scuffle between the accused and the P.W.1 and they were rolling on the ground. P.W.10 came and separated the accused and P.W.l and the accused got up and ran towards the bank of Palaru. In the meanwhile P.W.13 Susila on hearing the noise, came to the place of occurrence and found P.W.2 and Perumal with bleeding injuries lying in the house of P.W.l. P.W.2 was taken by P.W.13 and Mallika in a rickshaw to the Government Hospital Vellore for treatment. On 112. 1985 at 8.50 p.m. P.W.13 took P.W.2 to the Government Hospital Vellore and produced her before P.W.3 Dr.Kathiravan. It appears that P.W.2 told P.W.3 that she was stabbed with a knife by a known person near her house at 8 p.m. P.W.2 treated P.W.3 by admitting her as an inpatient and P.W.3 is of opinion that the injury found on P.W.2 could have been caused by a knife like M.O.3. The injury found on P.W.2 is a simple one. Ex.P-3 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.3 to P.W.2. The injury found on P.W.2 is a simple one. Ex.P-3 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.3 to P.W.2. Then P.W.2 got herself discharged voluntarily and went to the C.M.C. hospital at Vellore for treatment. P.W.2 was treated by Dr.Kajirival P.W.4. He was also of the opinion that the injury on P.W.2 was simple in nature and he gave wound certificate Ex.P-5 to P.W.2. P.Ws.8 and 9 took the injured Perumal in an autorickshaw to the C.M.C. Hospital Vellore for treatment. And Perumal was produced before Dr.George at 8.45 p.m. on 112. 1985 and P.W.5 declared that Perumal was already dead. Doctor sent Ex.P-6 death memo to the Vellore North Police Station. P.W.1 after scuffle with the accused opposite to the house of Kannan came towards his house and the accused ran towards the bank of Palaru. P.W.1 after coming to his house came to know that P.W.2 and injured Perumal were taken to the Hospital. So he went to the Vellore North Police Station and gave a report Ex.P-2 at 9.30 p.m. to the Inspector of Police P.W.16. P.W.16 recorded the statement and read out the same and obtained the signature of P.W.1. He registered a case in Crl.No.1267 of 1985 under Sec.307, I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-11 printed F.I.R. sent copy to the higher authorities and also sent P.W.1 with memo Ex.P-27 to the hospital for treatment. P.W.16 received the death memo Ex.P-6 at 10 P.M. P.W.16 changed the Section into one under 302, I.P.C. and sent express report under Ex.P-22 to the higher authorities. P.W.16 conducted inquest from 10.30 p.m. on 112. 1985 till 1 a.m. and Ex.P-23 is the inquest report. He sent a memo Ex.P-7 through P.W.12 to the Government Hospital along with the dead body for autopsy P.W.16 inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.14 and prepared Ex.P-15 observation mahazar. He noticed the burning of electric light opposite to the house of P.W.1 at the time when he prepared observation mahazar. Ex.P-24 is the rough sketch and M.Os.l and 2 were recovered under Ex.P-16 mahazar in the presence of P.W.14. P.W.16 sent P.W.1 to P.W.3 Dr.Kathiravan for treatment. P.W.1 told P.W.3 that he was attacked with knife, stick and stone by two persons at about 8.30 p.m. P.W.3 noticed incised wound on his head and also on his right hand and left hand also. P.W.16 sent P.W.1 to P.W.3 Dr.Kathiravan for treatment. P.W.1 told P.W.3 that he was attacked with knife, stick and stone by two persons at about 8.30 p.m. P.W.3 noticed incised wound on his head and also on his right hand and left hand also. P.W.3 noticed other injuries and issued Ex.P-4 wound certificate. 3. On 112. 1985 P.W.6 Dr.Soundararajan conducted autopsy at 11.40 a.m. and he noticed injuries and issued Ex.P-8 postmortem certificate. According to the Doctor P.W.6 the injuries found on his head are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After the autopsy P.W.12 seized the clothes owned by the deceased M.Os.6 to 8 and produced before the Police Station. On 112. 1985 P.W.16 Inspector of Police examined P.W.1 and seized M.O.4 shirt in the presence of P.W.14 under Ex.P-17. P.W.2 was also examined by P.W.16 and M.O.5 is the blood stained saree owned by P.W.2 and it was seized under Ex.P-18 mahazar. M.Os.6 to 8 were produced by P.W.12 under Ex.P-25. Then on 20.12.1985 P.W.16 arrested the accused and produced before P.W.15. The accused gave a voluntary confession statement to P.W.15 and the admissible portion of it is Ex.P-19. Then the accused took P.Ws.15 and 16 to a Pusani push near the house of Kannan at Then-naimara Street and produced M.O.3 knife to P.W.16 in the presence of P.W.15. And it was seized under mahazar Ex.P-15 in which P.W.15 had attested. The accused was sent to the hospital for treatment with a memo Ex.P-26. P.W.7 Dr.Thiruvalluvar examined the accused at 1.30 p.m. on 20.12.1985 and found on him the injuries which are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P-9 wound certificate. P.W.7 is of opinion that the injuries found on the accused could have been caused in scuffle when the accused rolled on the ground with another. P.W.16 sent the material objects under Exs.P-25 and P-28 to the court of the Second Judicial Magistrate Vellore and M.Os.3 to 8 were sent under Ex.P-10 to the Chemical Examiner for opinion. P.W.11 Head Clerk in the Magistrate’s Court sent them for opinion of the Chemical Examiner and he received the report Ex.P-12 from the Chemical Examiner and Ex.P-13 from the Serologist. As per Ex.P-13 M.O.3 contained ‘A’ Group blood of a human M.O.4 contained ‘B’ Group blood. M.O.5 contained human blood M.O.6 contained ‘A’ Group blood MO.7 contained human blood. M.O.8 confined A Group blood. As per Ex.P-13 M.O.3 contained ‘A’ Group blood of a human M.O.4 contained ‘B’ Group blood. M.O.5 contained human blood M.O.6 contained ‘A’ Group blood MO.7 contained human blood. M.O.8 confined A Group blood. P.W.16 arrested the juvenile accused Raja at 10.30a.m. on 20.12.1985 near the old bridge of Palaru and the juvenile accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand. P.W.16 examinedP.Ws.8, 2,14on 112. 1985, he examined P.Ws.9 and 12on 112. 1985 and he examined P.Ws.5,6,10,13 and 15 on 20.12.1985, P.W.3 on 212. 1985, P.W.4on 21.1986, P.W.3 on 14. 1986 and P.W.7 on 11. 1986. After completing the investigation P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the accused and also the juvenile accused under Secs.302,307 read with 34, I.P.C. When the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. The accused also set up a case of self defence by stating that the deceased attempted to throw a big brick bat at the accused and the accused prevented it with his hands. Then he threw out the knife and went to the house and shut therein. The accused also stated that he was beaten by P.Ws.1, 2 the deceased and the wife of P.W.1. The accused has examined Eswaran as D.W.1. Kannammal gave a report under Ex.D-1 dated 110. 1985 in which she has stated that while she was sitting at the entrance of her house at 8 p.m. on 110. 1985 Perumal son of her elder son beat her with a stone due to the land dispute and Perumal was caught hold of by the persons who were present then. Kannammal also stated that she was admitted in the hospital by her daughter Vasan-tha. D.W.1 Eswaran is a Grade I Police Constable. He recorded a statement Ex.D-1 from Kannammal on 110. 1985. In cross-examination he stated that the case ended in a compromise. Ex.P-2 is the F.I.R. in this case that was recorded on 112. 1985. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused was drunk at the time of the occurrence and that therefore he had himself voluntarily provoked P.Ws.1 and 2 by picking out the quarrel unnecessarily. In cross-examination he stated that the case ended in a compromise. Ex.P-2 is the F.I.R. in this case that was recorded on 112. 1985. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused was drunk at the time of the occurrence and that therefore he had himself voluntarily provoked P.Ws.1 and 2 by picking out the quarrel unnecessarily. The fact that the accused was drunk at the time of the occurrence is found from Ex.P-2 F.I.R. Therefore the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is possible that the accused could have attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the deceased Perumal at the first instance. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused had to act by way of private defence as there was instant danger to his person and property also. Yet another argument was also put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. Since the accused did not attack the deceased with a knife except by inflicting only one stab. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the prosecution has not explained as to how the accused had sustained injuries. There was evidence of P.W.1 that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and also P.W.1 for about fifteen minutes. There were quarrels often between him and the accused even previously. P.W.1 has denied that he did not tell the Doctor when he was examined that he was attacked by stick, stone and knife. P.W.1 denied knowledge about the injuries found on the accused. P.W.1 admitted that he and the accused rolled on the ground opposite to the house of Kannan by catching hold of each other. P.Ws.9 and 14 turned hostile and they were subsequently cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 denied knowledge about the injuries found on the accused. P.W.1 admitted that he and the accused rolled on the ground opposite to the house of Kannan by catching hold of each other. P.Ws.9 and 14 turned hostile and they were subsequently cross-examined by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments reported in Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2252, Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, (1981)4 S.C.C. 245 :1981 S.C.C. (Crl) 826, Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Crl.L.J. 852: (1983)2 S. C. C. 342:1983 S. C.C. (Crl.) 459.A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 463 and Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 128: (1981)4 S.C.C. 245 :(1981) S.C.C. (Crl.) 826, for the proposition that the accused even assuming without admitting is alleged to have stabbed only once and that he had no intention to cause death of Perumal. In any event the conviction under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant read out the provision under Sec.304, Parts 1 and 2, I.P.C. Sec.304, I.P.C. reads as follows: "Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused had no intention to cause death. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the recital in Ex.P-2 complaint given by P.W.1 and he also draw my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 in court. Where P.W.1 has stated that This sentence is absent in the Ex.P-2. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the recital in Ex.P-2 complaint given by P.W.1 and he also draw my attention to the evidence of P.W.1 in court. Where P.W.1 has stated that This sentence is absent in the Ex.P-2. Therefore the discrepancy between Ex.P-2 and the evidence of P.W.1 is taken advantage of by the accused to support his contention that he had no intention to cause death Sec.304(1), I.P.C. can be invoked if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. According to him the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused had stabbed the deceased by stating that “he did not even mind even if he would be sent jail for 10 years” is an after thought as otherwise P.W.1 would have stated so immediately in his Ex.P-2 report. Therefore the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the accused had o such intention to cause death to the deceased at the time he had stabbed him. According to him the accused had caused bodily injury as is likely to cause death even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true and so the lower court has found him not guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and found him guilty under Sec.304(I), I.P.C. 5. In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 126: (1981)4 S.C.C. 245 :1981 S.C.C. (Crl.) 826. The Supreme Court observed as follows: “There was no premeditation. It was something like hit and run. In such a case, part 3 of Sec.300 would not be attracted because it cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the circumstances it would appear that the accused inflicted an injury which he knew to be likely to cause death and the case would accordingly fall under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. In that case the accused gave the deceased one blow with a danger that landed in epigastrium area. He succumbed to the injury. In that case there is no absence of previous enmity. There being no intention on the part of the accused to cause injury in question.” 6. He succumbed to the injury. In that case there is no absence of previous enmity. There being no intention on the part of the accused to cause injury in question.” 6. In Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R 1990 S.C. 2251 The Supreme Court observed in the above case as follows: “Accused inflicting single stab landing on chest of the deceased. Occurrence happening in a spur of moment and in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel without premeditation and an intention to cause death or to cause fatal injury could not be imputed against the accused. The Supreme Court found not guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and found him guilty under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C.” 7. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1983 S.C 463: 1983 Crl.L.J. 852: (1983)2 S.C.C. 342 : 1983 S.C.C. (Crl.) 459, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “Sudden quarrel and supra of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties without premeditation or malice and that an young man causing single blow by knife on the chest of the victim causing his death. The Supreme Court observed that there is no intention to cause death or causing particular injury. But the Supreme Court found that knowledge that he was likely to cause injury which was likely to cause death could however be inferred. Therefore the Supreme Court found the accused not guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and found him guilty under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. In this case also the occurrence is said to have taken place on a trivial matter. And there was a sudden quarrel and the accused had caused only one stab on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death of Perumal. Applying the above ratio to the present case the conclusion arrived at by the trial court under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. cannot be accepted. There is evidence that the accused had caused injury at about 8.30 p.m. In view of the discussion made above, the conviction under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. against the accused is aside and the accused is found guilty under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C." 8. There is evidence that the accused had caused injury at about 8.30 p.m. In view of the discussion made above, the conviction under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. against the accused is aside and the accused is found guilty under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C." 8. In the result, the accused is convicted and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 within a period of 12 weeks from now and on his deposit before the learned Sessions Judge, the said amount shall be disbursed to P.Ws.1 and 2 immediately. With the above modification regarding sentence the criminal appeal is dismissed. 9. The petitioner is entitled to remission of sentence under the three Government Orders, which are: (1) G.O.Ms.No.279, (Home) Prison C, dated 22. 1992; (2) G.O.Ms.No.180, (Home) Prison, dated 21. 1989, and (3) G.O.Ms.No.781, (Home) Prison, dated 14. 1990. In the circumstances, the petitioner/accused need not surrender before the jail authorities.