Judgment :- Thangamani, J: The State represented by the Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nagercoil in S.C.No. 89 of 1984 on his file. The respondent was charged under Sec. 302, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 27. 1984 at about 6.30 p.m. at Punathuvilai, Sion Malai, in front of his house committed the murder of one Sundaram by stabbing him with M.O.1 knife. 2.The prosecution examined 18witnesses, filed 21 exhibits and marked 4 material objects. They disclose these facts: The respondent Joseph and deceased Sundaram are cousins. The respondent was indebted to Sundaram. Two months prior to the occurrence there was a wordy quarrel between the two when the deceased demanded repayment of the loan. One month prior to the incident also both of them quarrelled with each other oh this issue. On 17. 1984 at about 8.00 a.m. deceased Sundaram once again made a demand for the repayment of the debt. A wordy duel ensued. P.W.4 Ramalakshmi intervened and pacified both of them. Respondent went away stating that he would pay the money at the appropriate place. 3. On 27. 1984 at about 6.30 p.m. Sundaram returned home from work. Then he proceeded towards the shop of one Selvaraj for making some purchase along with his wife P.W.1 Saroja. On the way when they passed the house of the respondent, the latter came running with M.O.1 knife and stabbed him repeatedly five or six times on the left eye, left shoulder and left neck. Sundaram sustained bleeding injuries. P.W.1 Saroja who was walking 10 feet behind her husband, P.W.2 Srikandan and P.W.3 Sundararaj who happened to pass along the road at that time witnesses the occurrence. Others in the bazaar also came running shouting. M.O.1 knife fell down from the hands of the respondent and the latter ran away from that place. 4. Thereafter P.W.2 Srikandan went to the shop of one Chidambaram, the elder brother of Sundaram in a cycle and informed him of the incident. At the instance of Chidambaram P.W.9 Nagamani took the deceased along with P.W.1 Saroja in his taxi to Thiruvattar Police Station. At about 8.00 p.m. P.W.12 Sub-Inspector who was incharge of the police station recorded the statement given by Sundaram and read over the same to him. At the instance of Chidambaram P.W.9 Nagamani took the deceased along with P.W.1 Saroja in his taxi to Thiruvattar Police Station. At about 8.00 p.m. P.W.12 Sub-Inspector who was incharge of the police station recorded the statement given by Sundaram and read over the same to him. Sundaram also produced M.O.1 knife and M.O.1 blood-stained lungi which he was wearing at that time P.W.12 Sub-Inpector obtained the signature of Sundaram in that complaint Ex.P-1 and registered the same. He also received M.Os.1 and 2 produced by Sundaram and then sent the injured to the Hospital with Ex.P-3 medical memo. He reached the scene of occurrence at 9.00 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-9 observation mahazar and Ex.P-11 rough sketch. P.W.10 Swamidoss present there attested the mahazar. The Sub-Inspector of Police recovered blood stained earth found on the street which are M.Os.3 and 4 under Ex.P-10 mahazar. P.W.11 Nagamani who was present there attested the mahazars. Then P.W.12 Sub-Inspector examined P.W.9 driver and recovered Ex.P-6 trip sheet from him. He also proceeded to Government headquarters hospital and Examined P.W.1 Saroja and Sundaram who was undergoing treatment there. Ex.P-12 is the statement and dying declaration of Sundaram. 5. At 10.44 p.m., P.W.5 Doctor examined Sundaram in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Nagercoil. He represented to the Doctor that he had sustained the injuries while he was attacked with kattari by a known person at 6.30 p.m. The Doctor found the following injuries; 1. A stab injury over outer angle of left eye 1" x 1" eye ball protruding out movements not possible. Bleeding present. 2. A small niche 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 lateral to the nose on right side. 3. Stab injury over left side of neck 2" above supra clavicular fossa size. 2 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 1 elliptical in shape. 4. Stab injury over middle of outer aspect of left arm. 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" elliptical in shape. 5. Stab injury over tip of right shoulder 1/2" x 1/ 2 x 1/4". 6. Injury over left palm 11/2"x l/2"x 1/2". Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate issued by him. The injured himself told the Doctor how he had sustained the injuries. The Doctor is of opinion that the injuries could have been caused at the time alleged. P.W.5 Doctor admitted him in the accident emergency ward for further treatment. At 1.00 a.m. on 27. Injury over left palm 11/2"x l/2"x 1/2". Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate issued by him. The injured himself told the Doctor how he had sustained the injuries. The Doctor is of opinion that the injuries could have been caused at the time alleged. P.W.5 Doctor admitted him in the accident emergency ward for further treatment. At 1.00 a.m. on 27. 1984 P.W.6 Doctor examined Sundaram in the ward. He suspected optic nerve injury. He pushed eye ball inside the socket and sutured. There was total loss of vision. In his view, the injury to the left eye could have been caused by M.O.1 penknife. P.W.7 Doctor also treated Sundaram in the ward for the stab injury. 6. On 27. 1984 at 4.30 a.m. P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused at Verkilambi and arranged to send him to remand. 7. On 27. 1984 at 9.30 a.m.P.W.7 Doctor who was in-charge of the ward found Sundaram dead and sent Ex.P-5 death intimation to Kottar Police Station. P.W.13 constable received the same at 1.05 p.m. in Kottar Police Station and transmitted it to Thiruvattar Police Station. P.W.14 Constable incharge of Thiruvattar police station received the same, altered the crime to one under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sent Ex.P-16 Express F.I.R. to the court and information to the Inspector of Police. 8. P.W.18 Inspector took up investigation of the case. He proceeded to Government headquarters hospital, Nagercoil and held inquest over the body of Sundaram from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. At that time he examined P.Ws.1 to 4. Ex.P-21 is the inquest report. Then he sent the body for postmortem through P.W.15 Constable with Ex.P-15 requisition. 9. On 27. 1984 at 10.40 a.m. P.W.8 Doctor commenced post-mortem and noticed the following injuries. External injuries: 1. Sutured wound on the outer angle of the left eye 2“in length. 2. Healed wound on the lateral aspect of the nose on the right side 1/2” x 1/2“. 3. Sutured wound on the left side of the neck above the supra clavicular fossa 2 1/2” in length. 4. Sutured wound on the middle of the outer aspect of the left arm 1“in length. 5. Sutured wound on the superior aspect of the right shoulder 1/2 in length. 6. Sutured wound on the left palm 1 1/2” in length. 3. Sutured wound on the left side of the neck above the supra clavicular fossa 2 1/2” in length. 4. Sutured wound on the middle of the outer aspect of the left arm 1“in length. 5. Sutured wound on the superior aspect of the right shoulder 1/2 in length. 6. Sutured wound on the left palm 1 1/2” in length. Internal injuries: On exploration of injury No. 1, inferior rectus and lateral rectus of left eye are found to be sutured. Optic nerve is found to be partially out on the lateral aspect. The extra ocular muscles are found to be adherent with the orbital wall. Internal Examination: Heart: 250 Gms. Contained fluid blood. Brain: 1200 gms. Yellowish pus was found to be present in the sub arachnoid space and base of skull. Brain surface and out section congested.The Doctor is of opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Meningitis 24 to 28 hours prior to post-mortem. Ex.P-7 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. P.W.15 Constable present at the time of post-mortem handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased. 10. On 30.7.1984 P.W.18 Inspector obtained M.O.1 knife from the court and examined the doctors and returned he knife. On his requisition Ex.P-7 dated 8. 1984 the material objects were cent for chemical examination from Judicial II Class Magistrate Court by P.W.17 Head clerk. Ex.P-18 is the officer copy of the communication from J.S.C.M. Exs.P-19 and P-20 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. They disclose that M.O.1 knife, M.O.2 lungi and M.Os.3 and 4 tarred earth all contain the same ‘B’ Group of human blood. On completion of investigation, P.W.18 Inspector laid the charge-sheet. 11. When examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. the accused pleaded that at about 7.00 p.m. on 27. 1984, there was scuffle between Sundaram and some others in an arrack shop. Sundaram sustained injuries at that time. On account of enmity with this accused, Chidambaram, the brother of the deceased had falsely implicated him. 12. After trial, leaned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the charge. Hence the appeal. 13. 1984, there was scuffle between Sundaram and some others in an arrack shop. Sundaram sustained injuries at that time. On account of enmity with this accused, Chidambaram, the brother of the deceased had falsely implicated him. 12. After trial, leaned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the charge. Hence the appeal. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the reasons given by the trial court from absolving the accused of the charge are perverse and baseless, he brought to our notice that the order of acquittal is based on these factors: .(i) The evidence of P.W.1 Saroja and P.W.4 Ramalakshmi regarding the indebtedness of the deceased, the instances of quarrel between the accused and the deceased on account of the latter demanding repayment of the loan are not acceptable. .(ii) No neighbouring house owner has been examined to speak about the scuffle between the two. (iii) The testimony of P.W.1 Saroja that she had accompanied Sundaram to the bazaar on that Saturday evening is doubtful. .(iv) P.Ws.1 to 3 had given different versions regarding the utterances of the accused immediately prior to the incident. This improbablises their presence at the scene of crime. .(v) As per the medical evidence, the injuries found on the deceased could not have been caused by M.O.1 knife. .(vi) The signature purported to be that of Sundaram in Exs.P-1 and P-2complaints differ from one another. (vii) Ex.P-12 statement-dying declaration could not have been given by Sundaram. (viii) Ex.P-1 complaint had reached the J.S.C.M. only on 9. 1984 and there is no explanation for the long delay. 14. P.W.1 Saroja and P.W.4 Ramalakshmi speak about the prior enmity and the wordy duel between the accused and the deceased. P.W.2 Srikandan also states that two months prior to the occurrence, both of them quarrelled in front of his house and he had pacified them. The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 Srikandan for the reason that he is unable to say the date and month on which the scuffle took place in front of his house. Learned Judge goes on to say that the neighbouring house owners are also not examined regarding this scuffle. Besides, while P.W.2 Srikandan speaks about the occurrence, P.W.1 Saroja states that nine months prior to the occurrence, accused had borrowed Rs.400 from her husband. Learned Judge goes on to say that the neighbouring house owners are also not examined regarding this scuffle. Besides, while P.W.2 Srikandan speaks about the occurrence, P.W.1 Saroja states that nine months prior to the occurrence, accused had borrowed Rs.400 from her husband. Two months later, when her husband asked for the return of the money, the quarrel on sued between the two. The trial court is of the view that the versions of these two witnesses regarding the time of quarrel differs and hence the prosecution evidence regarding the prior enmity is unacceptable. it has also rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 for the reason that while P.W.1 Saroja swears that P.W.4 Ramalakshmi pacified both of them, the said P.W.4 Ramalakshmi has not stated anything about this in her evidence. Needless to say that this reasoning of the trial court is unsound. In our view, the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 sufficiently establish that prior to the incident, wordly quarrels had taken place more than once between the accused and the deceased over a hand loan of Rs.400. In any event, in view of the positive evidence of the eye witnesses in this case, motive aspect of the case ales into insignificance. 15. As per the evidence of P.W.1 Saroja, when the accused met her husband in the bazaar, he had told him. Whereas P.W.2 Srikandanswears that prior to the concurrence the accused had uttered these words According to P.W.3 Sundararaj, the words spoken by the accused are It is surprising that the minor variations in the evidence of these three witnesses in reproducing the exact words uttered by the accused has weighed so much with the trial court as to reject their versions in entirety. Learned Sessions Judge has failed to note that in substance all of them speak about the expression of intention on the part of the accused to do away with Sundaram. 16. P. W.1 Saroja, P.W.2 Srikandan and P.W.3 Sundararaj are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They narrate how the deceased was assaulted by the accused with M.O.1 pen knife when the former was proceeding in front of latter’s house on that Saturday evening. P.W.1 Saroja is stated to have accompanied her husband to the bazaar. P.Ws.2 and 3 say that they also passed to be there when the incident took place. They narrate how the deceased was assaulted by the accused with M.O.1 pen knife when the former was proceeding in front of latter’s house on that Saturday evening. P.W.1 Saroja is stated to have accompanied her husband to the bazaar. P.Ws.2 and 3 say that they also passed to be there when the incident took place. P.W.1 Saroja says in the witness box that her husband was proceeding 10 feet ahead of her. But she has failed to mention the same during investigation. This has been made much or by learned Sessions Judge to reject her version. Further P.W.1 Saroja admits in her evidence that there is another route via the house of one Swamikannu to reach the bazaar from her house. Further observing that Ex.P-11, plan also disclose such a route, the trial court has expressed doubt whether the deceased and P.W.1 Saroja would have proceeded along the Tar road as indicated in the evidence. It is only a surmise on the part of the trial court in holding that P.W.1 Saroja and her husband would not have gone to the bazaar along the road as spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. It is significant to note that there is no doubt regarding the scene of crime and there was not even a suggestion to the eye witnesses during their cross-examination on this aspect. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would reveal that their testimonies have withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing has been elicited as to why they should not be acted upon. As observed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. As observed by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 48, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf Instead of following this salutary principle of the appreciation of evidence, evidently learned Session Judge has attached much importance to minor discrepancies on trial matters not touching the core of the case. It is true that the court before whom the witnesses gave evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by them and this court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. However, we are satisfied that the appreciation of evidence in this case by learned Sessions Judge is thoroughly perverse and erroneous. 17. While the occurrence is stated to have taken place at about 6.30 p.m. on 27. 1984, the deceased himself has lodged Ex.P-1 complaint before P.W.12 Sub-Inspector at Thiruvattar Police Station at 8.00 p.m. on that day, and this complaint as well as Ex.P-2, F.I.R. were received in the court of J.S.C.M. at 3. p.m. on 27. 1984. Learned Sessions Judge has mistakenly stated that only on 9. 1984 the Magistrate had received Ex.P-1. It is significant to note that prompt lodging of F.I.R. by the victim himself where the narration practically correspondents to the account given by the eyewitnesses in the witness box goes a long way to probabilise the prosecution case. Besides mentioning about the manner of assault and injury sustained, this complaint contains the names of all the three eye witnesses and makes mention of the production of M.O.1 pen knife and M.O.2. lungi in the Police Station. The wordy duel that took place on 17. 1984, in the presence of P.W.4 Ramaswamy also finds a place in this complaint. Besides mentioning about the manner of assault and injury sustained, this complaint contains the names of all the three eye witnesses and makes mention of the production of M.O.1 pen knife and M.O.2. lungi in the Police Station. The wordy duel that took place on 17. 1984, in the presence of P.W.4 Ramaswamy also finds a place in this complaint. That this complaint also constitutes the dying declaration of deceased Sundaram is important. 18. P.W.12 Sub-Inspector has stated that he has obtained the signature of deceased Sundaram in Ex.P-1 complaint as well as in Ex.P-2 F.I.R. on a comparison of the handwriting learned Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that the name of Sundaram appearing on the reverse of Ex.P-2 differs from the signature in Ex.P-1 and in all likelihood the person who has prepared F.I.R. himself has written the name of Sundaram on the reverse of that document. Relying on this factor and the appearance of a ‘X’ mark near the signature of Sundaram in Ex.P-4 learned Session Judge has come to the conclusion that this complaint would have been prepared only after consulting Chidambaram, the brother of the deceased. We are unable to agree with this finding of the trial court. No doubt, the signature of Sundaram in Ex.P-1 goes not appear to be identical with that found on the reverse of Ex.P-2. But this signature appears near the column for the acknowledgement of the copy of the F.I.R. So it is quite likely the person who has prepared Ex.P-2 himself has written the name of Sundaram near that column. And we do not think that it, in any way, affects the credibility of the complaint. 19. Ex.P-19 is the statement of Sundaram recorded by P.W.12 Sub-Inspector during investigation. This has been marked as dying declaration of Sundaram. Learned Sessions Judge has held that P.W.12 Sub-Inspector would not have recorded this statement at the time and manner spoken to by him and so no importance could be attacked to this document, we also agree with his view. However, we do not think that the rejection of this piece of evidence can in any way affect our conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. 20. P.W.5 Dr. Nagarajan has examined injured Sundaram at 10.44 p.m. on 27. 1984 in the Government Headquarters/Hospital at Nagercoil. Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate issued by him. However, we do not think that the rejection of this piece of evidence can in any way affect our conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. 20. P.W.5 Dr. Nagarajan has examined injured Sundaram at 10.44 p.m. on 27. 1984 in the Government Headquarters/Hospital at Nagercoil. Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate issued by him. This certificate and his evidence reveal that the injured himself had told this Doctor that he was attacked with Kattari by a known person at 6.30 p.m. on that day near Punathuvilai. This also constitutes the dying declaration which goes in support of the prosecution narration of the incident. Even learned Sessions Judge remarks that there could be no doubt that Sundaram in a conscious state of mind bad told P.W.5 Doctor how he was attacked. But he has not given any convincing reason for not acting upon this version of the deceased. 21. The evidence of P.W.5 Doctor as well as P.W.8 Doctor who conducted the postmortem reveal the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The trial court has disbelieved the evidence of the eye witnesses for the reason that the medical evidence does not support the ocular versions. He has disbelieved the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 mainly on the ground that M.O.1 could not have caused the injury on the neck elliptical in shape. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the Doctors P.Ws.5, 6 and 8, we are unable to accept the conclusion of the trial court. Besides as the Apex Court has held in Marpal Singh v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1066: 1977 Crl.L.J. 642: (1977) 2 S.C.C. 131 : 1977 S.C.C. (Crl.) 262: (1977) 2 S.C.R. 901 . It is in such cases where there is any direct conflict between the ocular and the medical evidence that the court has to reject the prosecution case. In the instant case there is any direct conflict between the ocular and the medical evidence that the court has to reject the prosecution case. In the instant case, there is no real inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, to render the prosecution case unbelievable. Since the eye witnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence ocular only be corroborative. In the instant case, there is no real inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, to render the prosecution case unbelievable. Since the eye witnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence ocular only be corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes no for that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. 22. Further, in Ex.P-3 memo sent by P.W.5 Doctor who had examined the injured at the earliest point of time he has mentioned that as per the representations made to him by the deceased, he was assaulted at 6.30 p.m. on 27. 1984 by the respondent herein with a pen knife. And we find from Ex.P-20 Serologist’s report that the same ‘B’ group of human blood has been found in M.O.I penknife, M.O.2 lungi and M.Os.3 and 4 Tarred earth: both M.O.1 pen-knife and M.O.2 lungi were produced by the deceased himself while giving the complaint at the police station and the said complaint makes mention of the same. This factor also goes in support of the prosecution theory of the incident. However, learned Sessions Judge has not given any convincing reason for ignoring this aspect of the evidence. 23. Ex.P-15 us Form No. 91 prepared by P.M.12 Sub-Inspector on 27. 1984 for the seizure of M.O.3 tarred earth and M.O.4 tarred earth. Though this bear:; the date 27. 1984 and initially the offence is stated to be one under Sec. 326, I.P.C., it is found altered as Sec. 302, I.P.C. So this could have been made: only after the death of Sundaram on 27. 1984. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out this discrepancy to support the findings of learned Sessions Judge. The trial court judgment also makes reference to this discrepancy. 1984. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out this discrepancy to support the findings of learned Sessions Judge. The trial court judgment also makes reference to this discrepancy. However, this does not go to the root of the matter so as to effect the veracity of the witnesses. 24. In Chimanbhal Ukabbai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 M.L.J. (Crl.) 505: A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 484: 1983 Crl.L.J. 822: (1983)2 S.C.C. 174 : (1983)1 Crimes 625.1983S.CC. (Crl.) 379: (1983)1 S.C.J. 339, the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach conclusion that upon such evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. However, in exercising that power the appellate court should give proper weight and consideration to the following matters: (1) The views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge, who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses, which finding would not certainly be disturbed if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record. But in this case, we have no doubt in our mind that there was practically no appreciation of evidence on the part of the Sessions Judge. And his finding is perverse which calls for reversal. 25. While conviction the accused Sec. 235(2), Crl.P.C. contemplates hearing of the accused on the question of sentence before passing sentence on him according to law. In Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 3 S.C.R. 711 , the Supreme Court has pointed out that the object of this section is to give a fresh circumstances as may held the court is awarding an opportunity sentence having regard to the personal, social and other circumstances of the case. Of course, when it is a case of conviction under Sec. 302 I.P.C., if the minimum sentence is imposed, the question of providing an opportunity under Sec. 235(2) would not arise. In view of this observation, we cannot intend to direct the accused to be produced before us for questioning under Sec. 235(2), Crl.P.C. 26. Of course, when it is a case of conviction under Sec. 302 I.P.C., if the minimum sentence is imposed, the question of providing an opportunity under Sec. 235(2) would not arise. In view of this observation, we cannot intend to direct the accused to be produced before us for questioning under Sec. 235(2), Crl.P.C. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of acquittal passed by learned sessions judge is set aside. And the respondent/accused is convicted and sentenced under Sec. 302, I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life. The registry shall issue a copy of judgment forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Nagercoil for immediate to follow up action.