Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. This is an appeal by the State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, challenging the correctness of the acquittal of the respondent, who was A-1 in S.C.No.68 of 1985, on the file of the Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, of an offence punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C., along with the respondent, his wife Hesibai was tried as A-2 for having committed murder of the deceased in pursuance of her common intention with the respondent. However, learned trial Judge chose to acquit A-2 after trial, against whose acquittal State has not chosen to prefer an appeal. 2. Prosecution case in brief will have to be narrated. Deceased Louis and the respondent are the sons of P.W.4, Raman Nadar. P.W.4 had partitioned his properties in favour of the deceased and the respondent, by executing documents. However, respondent was not satisfied and was incessantly picking up quarrels with his father P.W.4, and his younger brother, the deceased. P.W.5 Ranjithabai, wife of the deceased, has deposed about the vowing of vengeance by the appellant, to do away with the deceased, for then he would become entitled to the entire property. 3. On 4. 1985 at or about 10.15 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 along with another, were engaged in conversation at the junction of Colachel road. Deceased Louis was standing in the front yard of his residence. Respondent questioned the deceased, if he had to part with electrical wirings and property in his favour. Deceased replied, that the respondent must so part with the property, to which he was entitled. Respondent and his wife, abused the deceased in vulgar language. Deceased advised them not to insult him. At that point of time acquitted accused (A-2), caught hold of Louis from behind, while the respondent stabbed on the left chest of the deceased, with a knife. Thereafter, respondent and his wife escaped from the scene of occurrence. When P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as other witnesses, neared injured Louis, he told them, that he had been stabbed by his elder brother. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined as ocular witnesses, but P.Ws.1 to 3 and 4 did not choose to support the prosecution case and hence were treated hostile. 4. When P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as other witnesses, neared injured Louis, he told them, that he had been stabbed by his elder brother. P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined as ocular witnesses, but P.Ws.1 to 3 and 4 did not choose to support the prosecution case and hence were treated hostile. 4. Soon after the occurrence, injured Louis proceeded to Kuzhithurai police station and preferred his complaint Ex.P-10 at 10.45 a.m. P.W.11 Ramaswami, Head Constable registered one Ex.P-10, Cr.No.110/85 under Secs.341 and 324, I.P.C., and prepared Ex.P-11, printed first information report. He forwarded Exs.P-10 and P-11 to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuzhithurai who received the same at 1220 p.m. on 4. 1985. P. W.11 forwarded injured Louis with a memo Ex.P-1 to the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai. 5. P.W.6, Dr.Jeyasingh David, examined at 11 a.m. on the same day, injured Louis on receipt of Ex.P-1. Medical Officer was informed by the victim, as to how he had sustained the injury found on him, on the very same day at 10.15 a.m. due to stab with a knife. P.W.6 found an incised injury 2 x 3/4“(depth not probed), and 1 1/2” below the left nipple, in a traverse direction. Bleeding was present. P.W.6 referred injured Louis to the Government Headquarters Hospital, at Nagercoil for further treatment. Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate. 6. P.W.7 Dr.Boopathi, admitted injured Louis as an in-patient in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil at 12 Noon on 4. 1985. P.W.8 Dr.Alagesan, performed surgery on injured Louis at 4 p.m. on 4. 1985. He explored the wound. The wound was going down at the 6th intercostal space, cutting the intercoastal muscle. Drainage was done. For a second time surgery was performed on Louis at 10 p.m. on 14. 1985. The stomach was found in the thoracic cavity, through the rent in diaphragm, in the cardiac part. By the second surgery, stomach and liver were placed in their proper positions. The rent in the diaphragm was sutured. It was 4“in length. The stomach had a perforation 1” in diameter. That was closed. The injury on diaphragm and the stomach corresponded to the external injury. Injuries, external and internal, were on vital parts. External and internal injuries could have been caused, due to stabbing with a knife. Injuries noticed by him, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Louis expired on 24. That was closed. The injury on diaphragm and the stomach corresponded to the external injury. Injuries, external and internal, were on vital parts. External and internal injuries could have been caused, due to stabbing with a knife. Injuries noticed by him, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Louis expired on 24. 1985 at 8.10 a.m. inspite of effective treatment. P.W.8 forwarded death intimation Ex.P-3 to the concerned police station. 7. P.W.13 Pavunraj, then Sub Inspector of Police, altered the crime into one underSec.302, I.P.C.,at 10 a.m. on 24. 1985, and forwarded the altered express report to the concerned Magistrate and his superior officers. Ex.P-15 is the altered express first information report. Before alteration of crime, P.W.12 Rayappan. Sub Inspector of Police, had conducted investigation on Ex.P-11, the initiation first information report registered for offences punishable under Secs.341 and 324, I.P.C. 8. P.W.12 had examined injured Louis at 11.15 a.m. on 4. 1985, at the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai and recorded his statement, Ex.P-12. Thereafter, he proceeded to the venue of crime and prepared Ex.P-13, observation mahazar and Ex.P-14 scene sketch. At 8 p.m. on the same day he arrested A-2 (since acquitted); at Marthandam. 9. P.W.16 Ramaswami, received a copy of express first information report at 10.15a.m. on 24. 1985. He took up further investigation proceeded to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil and conducted inquest between 11.10 a.m. and 2 p.m. during the course of which he examined P.Ws.1 to 5. Ex.P-16 is the inquest report. After inquest, he despatched the dead body, for conduct of post mortem, through a police constable, with a requisition Ex.P-4. On 24. 1985 he arrested the respondent at Eraniel bus stand and had him remanded. 10. P.W.9, Dr.Ben Ravindran, commenced autopsy at 3.15 p.m. on 24. 1985 and noticed the following external injuries: 1. A vertical wound scar of 4" in length on the left side of the chest below and medial to the nipple; 2. A lapratomy sutured wound of 8" in length on the left side of the abdomen; 3. An incised wound on the left side of the abdomen at the level of the tip of the left 10th rib 1" x 1/2" and entering into the peritoneal cavity (abdominal drainage wound). 4. A lapratomy sutured wound of 8" in length on the left side of the abdomen; 3. An incised wound on the left side of the abdomen at the level of the tip of the left 10th rib 1" x 1/2" and entering into the peritoneal cavity (abdominal drainage wound). 4. An infected wound on the left side of the chest in the mid axillary line at the level of the left 7th intercostal space 1" x 1/2" entering into the thoracic cavity (intercostal drainage wound). 5. An infected wound on the left 9th intercostal space in the mid-axillary line 1" x 1/2" and enters into the thoracic cavity (intercostal drainage wound). 6. Cut down wounds on both the legs on the medial malleoli 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" x skin deep." On exploration of wound No.1, he noticed a sutured wound of 4" in length in the left 6th intercostal muscle. On further exploration, 50 ml. of thick pus was found on the left thoracic cavity. Internal examination of wound No.2 divulged a sutured wound of 4" in length on the left dome of the diaphragm. He also noticed a sutured wound of 1" in length on the fundus of the stomach. In the opinion of the Doctor, deceased would appear to have died of spticemia, due to multiple injuries. Ex.P-5 is the post mortem certificate. The infected portion on the clinical wound had caused pus collection. The infection was on the wounds, made during surgery. Septicemia was due to infection. After completing investigation, P.W.15 laid the charge sheet before the committal court on 20.6.1985. 11. When the respondent was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he denied his complicity in the crime. He went on to add, that at the instance of one Chellappan, this false prosecution was foisted him rites and his wife. No evidence in defence was adduced. 12. 11. When the respondent was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he denied his complicity in the crime. He went on to add, that at the instance of one Chellappan, this false prosecution was foisted him rites and his wife. No evidence in defence was adduced. 12. Learned trial Judge, on assessment of evidence, on the basis of medical opinion, arrived at the conclusion, that if the prosecution case was capable of acceptance, respondent would be guilty of an offence punishable under Sec.326, I.P.C. However, in the light of hostility of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 he concluded, that it would not be safe to base a conviction, on the ocular version of P.W.2 alone due to certain infirmities pointed out by him, which we will refer to a little later-. Learned trial Judge was not prepared to place any reliance on Ex.P-10 the first information report, preferred by the deceased, which is new in the nature of a dying declaration, without much of discussion, learned trial Judge had rejected the oral dying declaration, made by the deceased to P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. In passing, the trial Judge has observed that the prosecution had not attempted to have a judicial dying declaration recorded. 13. Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the very narration of the prosecution case portrayed, the implicit truth of the prosecution case. There was no need for any one, much less the deceased himself, to have falsely implicated his elder brother as his assailant. Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and injured Louis had, on his own, proceeded to the nearest police station and given out his complaint without any delay whatever, within about thirty minutes after the incident. That the victim should have sustained the injuries in the manner narrated by him in the first information report, has been confirmed by medical evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor strenuously urged, that there was no need to fabricate the dying declaration and in fairness, the trial court must have accepted Ex.P-10, as a true document, since it has a ring of truth. He pointed out, that though P.W.1 had not supported the prosecution case, he had fixed the presence of P.W.2at the scene, apart from confirming the oral dying declaration made by the victim to him and others present. He pointed out, that though P.W.1 had not supported the prosecution case, he had fixed the presence of P.W.2at the scene, apart from confirming the oral dying declaration made by the victim to him and others present. He contended, that no view other than finding the respondent guilty of an offence under Sec.320, I.P.C., could be taken on the evidence available. 14. We have heard Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. He contended that a mere look at Ex.P-10, would indicate some squeezing in writing at its end, therefore, if the learned Sessions Judge had chosen to exclude Ex.P-10 from consideration, it cannot be stated, that the said approach was erroneous. He took us through the evidence of P.W.2 in great detail and commented that if, in fact, P.W.2 had witnessed the occurrence, there was no need for him to have questioned the deceased as to how he had sustained the injuries found on him. He then argued, that P.W.2 has spoken about the presence of P.W.5 at the scene, which was contradicted by P.W.5, who has deposed, that he was elsewhere at the time of this incident. He contended, that if the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P-10 had to be excluded from consideration, as correctly done by the trial court, impugned prosecution cannot be salvaged. 15. We have carefully considered the divergent contentions placed for our scrutiny. 16. It is no doubt true, that it is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, even if two views are possible, one indicating conviction and the other acquittal, the court will not interfere with the order of acquittal. At the same time, courts will not hesitate to interfere if the acquittal was perverse in the sense that no reasonable person would have come to that conclusion or if the acquittal is manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. In otherwords, when the view taken by the Sessions Judge is found by the High Court to be manifestly wrong and that it had led to miscarriage of justice, High Court is entitled to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused. In otherwords, when the view taken by the Sessions Judge is found by the High Court to be manifestly wrong and that it had led to miscarriage of justice, High Court is entitled to set aside the acquittal and convict the accused. The observations of the Supreme Court instate of U.P. v. Anil Singh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1998, will be apt and they need extraction: “With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also experienced that invariably the witnesses and embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from ,the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies of falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.” 17. Keeping these principles in view, we will now proceed to analyse the available evidence, for again there cannot be a discordant note, that in an appeal against acquittal this Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusion. In the event of reversing the verdict of the trial court, this Court should not only be satisfied that the grounds narrated for acquittal cannot be maintained, but also give out its own reasons which would outweigh the grounds which had led to the acquittal of the accused. 18. We have perused Ex.P-10 in its original shape. It is true, that the last four lines appear to have been squeezed. Equally we are able to visualise that the first fewlines have lesser space in between than the other lines which follow. 18. We have perused Ex.P-10 in its original shape. It is true, that the last four lines appear to have been squeezed. Equally we are able to visualise that the first fewlines have lesser space in between than the other lines which follow. It is quite possible to conceive, that the placing of lines has not been done, by the scribe in an arithmetical or geometrical pattern. The last few lines, which are claimed to have been squeezed in, does not relate to the occurrence proper. It only concerns about the production of the blood stained apparel, by the victim. Learned trial Judge ought to have pondered, as to why when the crime was registered only under Sec.324, I.P.C., there was a need to fabricate the first information report especially when, at that point of time, the death of the victim was not imminent. First Information Report has been in the usual course, forwarded to the Magistrate and received by him as well on the next morning at 12.20 p.m. This is one more circumstance which proclaims, the sanctity of the first information report. While appreciating either oral or documentary evidence a common sense approach will have to be adopted, for a mechanical rejection can most often lead to miscarriage of justice. After all, Louis was alive for about 15 days after he had sustained injuries and preferred Ex.P-10. If at all a complaint, with geometrical precision in its lines, was necessary, it could have been easily obtained. Ex.P-10, at the time when it was recorded, was not expected to be used as substantive evidence, but, unfortunately for the defence, after the death of the victim, it has been elevated to the position of a dying declaration, which is admissible in evidence. We have chosen to test the truth of Ex.P-10 from yet another angle. P.W.11, who had registered a crime on Ex.P-10 had forwarded the injured victim along with a medical memo, Ex.P-1, to the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai. Ex.P-1 is a very important document which has been overlooked by the learned trial Judge. Ex.P-1 which is a contemporaneous record prepared soon after the victim narrated his complaint, shows the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, its time, the venue and the offend-ers. P.W.6, Jeyasing David, had received Ex.P-1 at 11 a.m. on 4. 1985, within 45 minutes, after the alleged incident. Therefore, Ex.P-1 gets fully sanctified. Ex.P-1 which is a contemporaneous record prepared soon after the victim narrated his complaint, shows the manner in which the occurrence had taken place, its time, the venue and the offend-ers. P.W.6, Jeyasing David, had received Ex.P-1 at 11 a.m. on 4. 1985, within 45 minutes, after the alleged incident. Therefore, Ex.P-1 gets fully sanctified. That the appellant was the assailant of the deceased, while his wife had caught hold of the victim has been clearly mentioned in Ex.P-1. Neither P.W.6, nor P.W.11 have been cross examined on this vital document to create any doubt, about its credibility. Prima facie, before scrutinising Ex.P-10 in its original form, we did have an apprehension, if we could interfere in an acquittal, in the event of reasons given for rejection of Ex.P-10, due to its squeezed writing, could be plausible. After perusing Ex.P-10, in the light of Ex.P-1 and other circumstances, inclusive of the death of the deceased several days later, we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned trial Judge on Ex.P-10 cannot at all be held to be plausible view, for to our minds it appears to be opposed to practical common sense. As we have observed earlier, while referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, A.I.R. 1986S.C. 1998, if there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggests of truth. We are prepared to hold that no reasonable person, if he had weighed the pros and cons of the totality of evidence, could have rejected Ex.P-10 as a document fabricated. 19. We will now proceed to analyse the evidence of P.W.2, the sole ocular witness, now available to the prosecution. It is not as though the deceased and the respondent were strangers to him. At or about the occurrence of time, he was engaged in conversation with P.W.3 at Colachel road junction. Even prior to the incident, he had been the deceased standing in the front yard of his house. He has further witnessed the wordy altercation, inclusive of exchange of abuses, between deceased and both the accused. It was thereafter that the stabbing proper had occurred. He is very specific that as soon as he reached near the victim, he (victim), informed him that his elder brother had stabbed him. He has further witnessed the wordy altercation, inclusive of exchange of abuses, between deceased and both the accused. It was thereafter that the stabbing proper had occurred. He is very specific that as soon as he reached near the victim, he (victim), informed him that his elder brother had stabbed him. That such a statement in the evidence of P. W.2 must be true is amply affirmed by the version of P.W.l,Raju alias Reji, who, though was not inclined to speak about the occurrence proper, has certainly affirmed the presence of P.W.2 at the scene, as well as the victim having made an oral dying declaration implicating the appellant in this crime. The court is entitled to take the evidence of a hostile witnesses, to that extent it rings true and gets support from the other evidence available. The evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to fix the presence of P. W.2, at the scene as well as confirm the deceased having made an oral dying declaration, not only to him, but also to the other witnesses present. We do agree with the learned Sessions Judge that when cross-examined P.W.1 has stated as follows: We are able to visualise from this answer that it was not only P.W.2 but also certain others in his company, who had questioned the victim, as to how he had sustained injuries found on him. We should recapitulate, that P.W.2 was available near the scene vicinity, even before the quarrel between the respondent and the deceased commenced. He had heard exchange of abuses. It was thereafter that the victim was stabbed. It is possible to comprehend, that P.W.2 and other witnesses, inclusive of P.W.1 had rushed near the victim, when he had been asked in general as to how he had sustained injuries and the later came out with an oral dying declaration. It does not mean, that P.W.2 had not witnessed the occurrence and, not in the company of others, but alone he had questioned the victim to find out the manner in which he had sustained injuries. While appreciating this answer, we must keep in view, the manner in which the cross-examiner had put questions to the rustic witness, while eliciting an answer. On the basis of this admission alone, we are not prepared to hold that P.W.2 has not an ocular witness and he had been thrust into this prosecution. While appreciating this answer, we must keep in view, the manner in which the cross-examiner had put questions to the rustic witness, while eliciting an answer. On the basis of this admission alone, we are not prepared to hold that P.W.2 has not an ocular witness and he had been thrust into this prosecution. While appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 we cannot overlook the fact that the victim had mentioned about the presence of P.W.2 at the scene in Ex.P-10, the earliest document. The presence of P.W.2, as an ocular witness thus gets strengthened on the basis of Ex.P-10, which we are prepared to unhesitatingly, believe as a true document. .20. Apart from Ex.P-10, we have also the statement, Ex.P-12, recorded during investigation by P.W.12, on the very day of occurrence from the deceased who was then undergoing treatment at Kuzhithurai Government Hospital. At that time since the victim was not declared to be in a very serious condition, in expectation of death, naturally, P.W.12, did not think it necessary to obtain the attestation of the Medical Officer, in Ex.P-12. In view of the death of the deceased, Ex.P-12 has now enough value attached to it as a dying declaration. There is total consistency between Exs.P-12 and P-10. We are prepared to accept Ex.P-12 also, as one relevant and strong circumstance, in the prosecution case. Even if Ex.P-12 were to be excluded from consideration, even then the other evidence is quite ample and sufficient to hold the respondent guilty of the charge. 21. Learned Sessions Judge has referred to the evidence of P.W.2, wherein he has fixed the presence of P.W.5 at the scene, contrary to the evidence of P.W.5, that she was not so present and at that time was in her mother’s house. Admittedly, P.W.5 was neither an ocular witness nor a witness expected to furnish res gestae evidence. In respect of an occurrence which had taken place in April, 1985 P.W.2 or P.W.5 were deposing in August, 1986. It all depends upon the retentive memory of the witnesses to speak about the minute details in an occurrence, which they happened to witness 15 months earlier. We cannot expect the witnesses to have positioned themselves as video cameras and later depose in court as photostat replicas. It all depends upon the retentive memory of the witnesses to speak about the minute details in an occurrence, which they happened to witness 15 months earlier. We cannot expect the witnesses to have positioned themselves as video cameras and later depose in court as photostat replicas. P.W.5, wife of the deceased obviously had been sent for from her mother’s house and then she had proceeded to meet her husband at the Government Hospital, Kuzhithurai, where he was undergoing treatment. She had joined her husband at the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, also. She has also spoken about her husband having made an oral dying declaration, implicating both the accused, in this crime. She has deposed, that her husband had told her, that the respondent and his wife had jointly with a knife, stabbed on his left chest. This piece of evidence, prima facie, appears as though both the accused could have jointly stabbed the victim. Though it is possible, on the basis of other evidence, to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent alone should have been the assailant, we do not want to adopt presumptions and hence we have decided to exclude the oral dying declaration said to have been made by the victim to P.W.5, not because, it is untrue, but because it could be contended to be ambiguous. We must also mention at this stage, that P.W.6, the Doctor, who had first seen the victim has specifically stated, that he was able to obtain answers from the injured himself. This is one more indication, which affirms the truth of Ex.P-10, having been narrated by the deceased and which is now a dying declaration. .22. The hostility of P.W.4 is understandable, for he had lost one son and the other son is the appellant. He did not desire to lose his other son also, by allowing him to be incarcerated for life. We cannot easily erase from our minds the motive, which had led to this occurrence. Appellant obviously greedy, wanted to annex the property of his younger brother, after challenging him earlier, by threats and ultimately choosing to engage himself in this nefarious act. We are prepared to hold, that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be held to be a plausible view, in view of the variety of reasons, which we have now given. We are prepared to hold, that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be held to be a plausible view, in view of the variety of reasons, which we have now given. While appre-ciating evidence in its totality, it will be unjust to take a piece of evidence from one portion and another piece, from yet another portion and disjunctively consider them, without seeking to weigh the entire evidence as a wholesome whole, thus leading to conclusions, rather haphazard. While it is true that when a view is plausible on the evidence available the High Court will not interfere in an acquittal merely because it has got a different view to take. But it should be remember that the view taken must at once strike as feasible and not because it was sought to be made feasible on a laboured process of fallacious reasoning. 23. We hold that it was the respondent, who had stabbed the deceased on the occurrence morning, which ultimately ended in his fatality. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the trial Judge, it will not be possible for us to conclude that the respondent had the mens rea to kill the deceased. Medical evidence fully confirms that the mensrea of the deceased, in fact, could only go to the extent of his having attempted to endanger the life of the victim. If that be so, respondent will be liable to be convicted under Sec.326, I.P.C. and certainly not for murder. Cause of death was obviously due to intervening circumstances and septicemia, which was due to infection. It is apparent, that there has been some carelessness in the hospital as well, which had played its role in the ultimate death of the victim. 24. We set aside the acquittal of the respondent and convict him under Sec.326, I.P.C. 25. Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent will produce the respondent (Verkees), before us on 8. 1993, for questioning him, on sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor shall also, through the investigating officer in this crime, arrange for the production of the respondent, before us on 8. 1993. Registry is directed to issue summons to the respondent to-day itself, through the learned Public Prosecutor, for causing service, through the concerned police station. List on 58.1993. 1993, for questioning him, on sentence. Learned Public Prosecutor shall also, through the investigating officer in this crime, arrange for the production of the respondent, before us on 8. 1993. Registry is directed to issue summons to the respondent to-day itself, through the learned Public Prosecutor, for causing service, through the concerned police station. List on 58.1993. This appeal having been set down this day, pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 27. 1993, in the presence of the aforesaid advocates the Court delivered the following Judgment: Arun-achalam and Raju, JJ.: Respondent Verkees appeared before us today. We questioned him on sentence. He stated that he has sold his house property for Rs.40,000 at the instance of his pan-galis. He pleaded for lenient sentence. 26. After the respondent was questioned on sentence, we have also heard Mr.R.Subramaniam, counsel representing him. We impose a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as well as a fine of Rs.10,000 under Sec.326, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine petitioner shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Time for payment of fine shall be four weeks from to-day. Respondent shall deposit the fine now imposed before the Court of Sessions, Kanyakumari Division at Nager-coil. The entire fine amount, if collected, shall be paid as compensation by the Sessions Court, Kanniyakumari Division at Nagercoil to P.W.5, Renjithabai, wife of the deceased. 27. Learned Public Prosecutor fairly stated that certain beneficial remissions in sentence notified by the State Government will stand attracted to the case of the respondent and that the entire sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment now imposed, will get wiped out. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Mam Ram v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 2147, to support his plea that the sentence now imposed will date back to 28. 1986, when the judgment of the trial Court was pronounced. If that be so, petitioner need not have to surrender before the prison authorities to undergo the sentence of imprisonment now imposed on him. He shall stay inside the court hall till rising of the court.