Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 19 of 1986 on the file of Court of Sessions, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirapalli. 2. He was found guilty under Secs.324 and 302, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. and imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C, with a direction that the sentences are to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are: .(a) The accused is a resident of Koppu Village. His wife is P.W.3, a resident of M.G.R. Nagar, Puthur, Trichy. Her mother, is one Dhanapackiam (since deceased). Her father is by name one Murugesan. .(b) The marriage between the accused and P.W.3 took place some seven years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 3rd April, 1985. Ever since the marriage, the relationship between the spouses did not appear to be cordial. There were very often bickerings and skirmishes between them, resulting in P.W.3 leaving the matrimonial abode and taking shelter in her parents’ house. The accused, in turn, would somehow or other pacify his wife, P.W.3 and take her back to the matrimonial abode. This sort of bickerings between them, the wife running away from the matrimonial abode to take shelter in her parents’ house and again her returning back to the matrimonial abode had become a routine affair in their concourse of marital life. .(c) It so happened that a few days prior to the occurrence, that is to say, on 30.3.1985, P.W.3 had the usual quarrel with her husband-accused, the consequences of which was she returned to her parents’ house, taking her bags and baggages, along with children. .(d) The accused, two days thereafter, went to his inlaw’s house, in a bid to again pacify his wife, P.W.3 and take her back home again. This time his efforts to take back his wife, P.W.3 from his in-law’s house, faced a dismal failure. The sordid fact was that on 4. 1985, when such an attempt had been made by him, he was stated to have been beaten by his father-in-law, Murugesan, resulting in the preference of a complaint by him before Woraiyur Police who, in turn, without registering any case, somehow or other, mediated the dispute, in an amicable way and sent back the accused. 1985, when such an attempt had been made by him, he was stated to have been beaten by his father-in-law, Murugesan, resulting in the preference of a complaint by him before Woraiyur Police who, in turn, without registering any case, somehow or other, mediated the dispute, in an amicable way and sent back the accused. Thereafter, the accused did not return back to his house. He was somehow or other available in Woraiyur- Puthur itself with a determination to take back his wife. .(e) It appears that before ever such a mediation was effected, the accused had been sent to the hospital for treatment. P.W.6 the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli examined the accused at 11.10 p.m., and treated him for the injury he found on his person. Ex.P-4 is the wound certificate he issued. He would opine that the injury he found and described in Ex.P-4 are simple in nature. .(f) On 4. 1985, the accused was sitting in Raja Laundry belonging to P.W.2 situate at Wayalur Road, Puthur. The time was then 9 a.m. At that time, his wife P.W.3 was proceeding towards market, facing the said laundry. The accused entreated his wife, P.W.3 then to come along with him to his house. P.W.3 did not accede to such a course and ran away from there. .(g) In the evening at 5 p.m., the accused and P.W.3 had a bickering in front of Vekkaliamman Lodge, of which P.W.4 is the manager. The wordy altercation between them developed in a mutual fight. In the process of such a fight, both of them rolled on the ground. Such a mutual fight went on for a few minutes. Somehow or other, the wife, P.W.3, wriggled out of the clutches of the accused and attempted to run. On seeing such an occurrence, P.W.4 informed over phone to the Police Control Room of which P.W.9, Head Constable was then in charge. On receipt of such an information, P.W.9 made arrangements for sending a police van to the scene. .(h) In the process of chasing, the accused somehow or other, caught hold of P.W.3 and inflicted a stab on her left eye brow, by whipping out a knife, M.O.1 kept in his waist. On receipt of such an information, P.W.9 made arrangements for sending a police van to the scene. .(h) In the process of chasing, the accused somehow or other, caught hold of P.W.3 and inflicted a stab on her left eye brow, by whipping out a knife, M.O.1 kept in his waist. On seeing such a ghastly occurrence the deceased in a bid to save her daughter, P.W.3, went to her rescue, in the sense of preventing the accused from inflicting further stabs on her person. In such process, the accused proclaiming that the person responsible for his wife, P.W.3’s refusal to return back to his matrimonial abode was none-else than the deceased, were inflicted a stab on the deceased and the stab so inflicted landed on the left side of her chest, just below the left clavicle, close to the sternum. Apart from P.W.3, the entirety of the occurrence had been witnessed by P.W.I, rickshaw puller and P.W.2 laundry owner, besides P.W.4, who had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the initial quarrel that developed into mutual fighting and rolling on the ground between the spouse. .(i) In a bid to save the life of the deceased, she was put into an auto-rickshaw and taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, by her husband, Murugesan and others. The accused had, however, been caught by P.Ws. 1 and 2, along with M.O.1 knife and handed over to the police personnel, who came in the police van sent by P.W.9 Head-constable from the Control Room. The accused and P.Ws. 1 and 2, in the van, went and reached Woraiyur Police Station at 5.35 p.m. (j) On the way to the hospital, the victim- deceased breathed her last, and her death came to be noticed by P.W.5. However, the doctor P.W.5 Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, sent the body to the mortuary. .(k) P.W.12, then Sub-Inspector of Police was in charge of the station. P.W.I gave Ex.P-1 statement and P.W. 12, in turn, registered, a case, on the strength of Ex.P-1. in Crime No. 274/85 for alleged offences under Secs. 324 and 302, I.P.C. Ex.P-11 is the printed F.I.R. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. P.W.12 arrested the accused and recovered M.O.1 under Ex.P-2 mahazar attested by P.Ws. 1 and 2. On the next day, he was sent to court for remand. in Crime No. 274/85 for alleged offences under Secs. 324 and 302, I.P.C. Ex.P-11 is the printed F.I.R. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. P.W.12 arrested the accused and recovered M.O.1 under Ex.P-2 mahazar attested by P.Ws. 1 and 2. On the next day, he was sent to court for remand. .(1) Since P.W.12 found for certain injuries on the person of P.W.3, she had been sent to Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli of treatment with a police memo. The doctor P.W.5, then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the said hospital, examined her at 0.25 a.m., on 4. 1985 and treated her injuries. Ex.P-3 is the wound certificate, he issued. He would opine that the injuries found described in Ex.P-3 are simple in nature. .(m) P.W. 13 was the then Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Circle. On receipt of the express FIR, he went to the police station and took up further investigation. He examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at 8 p.m., in the police station itself at 10 p.m., he went to the scene of occurrence and after inspecting the scene, he prepared Ex.P-12 observation mahazar, He drew Ex.P-13, a rough sketch of the scene. Between 7 and 10 a.m. on 4. 1985, he held inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4. He then despatched the dead body through the constable P.W. 10 for the purpose of autopsy, along with a requisition. He examined P.Ws.5 and 8 and recorded their statements. He also examined P.W. 7, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli who treated the accused and issued Ex.P-5 wound certificate to him. .(n) P.W.8 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. On receipt of requisition from P.W. 13, he held autopsy over the body of the deceased at 12.10 p.m. Ex.P-6 is the post-mortem certificate he issued. He would opine that the injury he found on the body of the corpse, as described in Ex.P-6 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.I and the deceased would appear to have died due to the injury to the vital organ-heart 18 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. He would opine that the injury he found on the body of the corpse, as described in Ex.P-6 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.I and the deceased would appear to have died due to the injury to the vital organ-heart 18 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. .(o) After the autopsy was over P.W. 10 seized from the corpse M.O.2 saree, M.O.3 jacket, M.O.4 skirt and M.O.5 thali thread and handed over the same at the police station and they were seized under Form No.95. (p) P.W. 13 then sent Ex.P-7 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court No. 1, Tiruchirapalli for sending the material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination. (q) P.W.11 was the then Headclerk attached to the said Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court On receipt of Ex.P-11 requisition, pursuant to the orders of the Magistrate, material objects had been separately packed, sealed and sent to the Chemical Examiner, under the 6riginal of Ex.P-8, office copy of the letter for the purpose of examination. Exs.P-9 and P-10 are the reports of the chemical-examiner and the serologist respectively. .(r) On 14. 1985 P.W.13 examined P.W.6 and recorded his statement. On 26. 1985, he examined P.W.7. After completion of the formalities of the investigation P.W.13 laid a final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 1, Tiruchirapalli for alleged offences under Secs. 324 and 302, I.P.C., against the accused on 7. 1985. 4. On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Secs. 324 and 302, I.P.C., against the accused. 5. The accused, when questioned as respects the charges so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in proof of the charges so framed, examined P.Ws.1 to 13, filed Exs.P-1 to P-14 and marked M.Os.1 to 5. 7. The accused, when questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He did not, however, opt to examine any witness on his behalf. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials and after hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered a verdict as stated above. .9. He did not, however, opt to examine any witness on his behalf. 8. Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials and after hearing learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered a verdict as stated above. .9. Mr.V. Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused did not at all dispute the findings as recorded by the court below, as to the hand of the accused having been responsible for causation of injuries on the person of P.W.3, as well as on the person of the deceased, resulting in her death. He would, however, contend that even accepting the case of the prosecution as gospel truth the act of the accused, as relatable to the causation of injuries to the victim-deceased can, by no stretch of imagination, be stated to be one done with the requisite mens rea, attracting anyone of the four classes of Sec.300, I.P.C., punishable under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and if at all, his act, at the worst, might be stated to be one, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, done, in such a way, as he Was having knowledge of causation of injuries on the person of the deceased, which were likely to result in her death, thereby taking his act to fall under Sec. 304, Part II, I.P.C. 10. Mr.R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would leave the matter to the court, as relatable to the nature of the offences, committed by the accused, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, although he was firm that the findings that had been recorded by the court below that the hand that was responsible for the causation of the vital injury on the person of the deceased, resulting in her death, is none-else than that of the accused. 11. 11. Though a concession had been extended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as respects the case put forward by the prosecution in the sense that the accused was responsible for causing injuries on the person of P.W.3 as well as on the person of the deceased, resulting in her death, we may, however, point out that such concession is not without any reason and the reason perhaps is that there is plethora of unassailable evidence available on record, pointing out the hand of the accused in causation of the injuries On the person of P.W.3 as well as the deceased, resulting in her death. 12. There is the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 emerging from independent quarters, apart from the testimony of the injured, P.W.3, as respects the entirety of the occurrence, besides there being the testimony of another independent witness P:W.4, who testified as to how the occurrence originated. We have gone through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 in a threadbare fashion and such a perusal did not at all point out that their testimony is suffering from any sort of infirmity whatever. Despite searching questions put in cross-examination to those witnesses, the defence was unable to elicit any tangible material to point out that their version, as respects the occurrence is above reproach and beyond suspicion. This apart, not even a contradiction of such a nature so as to elicit suspicion in the mind of the court that they could not have been present in the scene had been elicited. Besides the medical testimony available on record in the shape of evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 head with Exs.P-3 and P-6 lends corroborative support to the version, as projected by the direct eye witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 4 that P.W.3, as well as the victim-deceased could have sustained injuries by means of a weapon, like M.O.1. In this view of the matter, we are of firm opinion that the hand that was responsible for causing the injuries on the person of P.W.3 as well as the deceased was none-else than that of the hand of the accused. 13. The question that remains for consideration, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, is as to what is the offence that had been committed by. the accused, as relatable to the overt act concerning the deceased. 13. The question that remains for consideration, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, is as to what is the offence that had been committed by. the accused, as relatable to the overt act concerning the deceased. As to the overt act relatable to the injured, namely P.W.3, there can be no manner of doubt whatever that on the face of the existence of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, coupled with the medical testimony, it would amount to an offence under Sec.324, I.P.C., as had been done by the court below. Can we state, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the act of the accused in inflicting a stab, by a weapon like M.O.1 on the left chest of the deceased, which resulted in her death, amounted to murder. 14. Admittedly, the marriage between the accused and P.W.3 got solemnized some seven years prior to the occurrence and ever since then, the matrimonial bliss, as is usually available to newly married couple, was not at all there between them. As quirk of fate would have it, there were frequent bickerings and quarrels between them and as a consequence of such quarrels, the wife, P.W.3 often resorted to take shelter in her parents’ house, leaving the matrimonial abode. It is also usual for the accused to somehow or other go to his in-law’s house, pacify his wife, P.W.3 and take her back to the matrimonial abode. Such a process continued for about seven years and they were also blessed with two children. It so happened, some few days prior to the occurrence, quarrels and bickerings erupted between them resulting in the wife, P.W.3 once and for all leaving the matrimonial abode, taking along with her bags and baggages and her children, in a bid to settle at her parents’ house. It is only in such a backdrop and setting, we have to view the conduct of the accused. 15. The accused, even in such a situation, did not want to leave his wife, P.W.3 in his father-in-law’s house; but his determination was so firm that somehow or other his wife, P.W.3 must be taken back to the matrimonial abode to lead a normal life. It is only with such an intention or desire in mind, he had been to his father-in-law’s place, a few days prior to the occurrence. It is only with such an intention or desire in mind, he had been to his father-in-law’s place, a few days prior to the occurrence. He, however, tried his level best, even on the day prior to the occurrence, namely 2nd April, 1985 to somehow or other take his wife to the matrimonial abode, while she was passing along Wayalur Road, near Raja Laundry. He caught hold of her hand and asked her to come along with him. To such a request, his wife P.W.3 was not amenable and she, in fact, wriggling out of his clutches, ran away from there. The disheartened accused did not return home. But he was adamantly waiting in his father-in-law’s place itself somehow or other to take his wife P.W.3 back. It is only in such a process, at or about the time of the occurrence, on the fateful day a wordy altercation arose between him and his wife P.W.3 and such a wordy altercation developed into a mutual fight with each other and consequently, both of them rolled on the ground, attracting the attention of others. In the process of such rolling, his wife P.W.3 wriggled out of his clutches and ran away from there and only in such a situation, the accused started chasing his wife P.W.3 and caught hold of her after some distance, and inflicted an injury on her left eye brow, by means of a weapon, M.O.1. he was having in his waist. It is only then, his mother-in-law, the deceased, obviously entertaining certain perilous consequences ensuing to the life of her beloved daughter P.W.3, at the hands of the accused, intervened in a bid to save her from further attack at the hands of the accused. It is only in such a situation, the accused was stated to have inflicted a stab on her person, which landed on her left chest. 16. Worthy it is to note, at this juncture, that he did not at all inflict any further stab at all on her person. Pertinent it is also to note, that the evidence on record did not at all establish that there was any sort of an. 16. Worthy it is to note, at this juncture, that he did not at all inflict any further stab at all on her person. Pertinent it is also to note, that the evidence on record did not at all establish that there was any sort of an. estranged feeling between the deceased mother-in-law and the accused at any point of time, although the prosecution placed on record, evidence pointing out that there was want of cordial atmosphere for the last seven years between the accused and his wife P.W.3. Even in the earliest information Ex.P-1. nothing had been stated as to deceased mother-in-law prior to her being stabbed, except her intervention at the time when the accused inflicted a stab on his beloved wife-P.W.3. It is only for the first time during the course of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution chose to adduce evidence through their mouth that at the time when the accused inflicted a stab on the person of the deceased mother-in-law, he was stated to have proclaimed that she alone was responsible for all the trouble that ensued between him and his wife. This sort of evidence, we rather feel, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is an after thought or an exaggerated or embellished version to make it appear that there was some sort of igniting cause for the accused-appellant to have resorted to stab his mother-in-law, the deceased. 17. Further, it cannot at all be stated that he intended to cause that injury, which was actually caused, that is to say, the injury on her left chest. In the hurly-burly of the intervention of the deceased, in the quarrel that was going on between the accused and P.W.3, the accused stabbed the intervenor, his mother-in-law-the deceased and the stab so inflicted unfortunately landed on her left chest, which resulted in her death. This aspect of the matter is also spoken to by the accused in his Sec. 313, I.P.C., statements. Such an act, we rather feel, cannot be any one other than the one, done on the spur of the moment without any sort of a deep deliberation. This impression of ours is further reinforced by the conduct of the accused in not revealing in inflicting any further stab on the person of the deceased. Such an act, we rather feel, cannot be any one other than the one, done on the spur of the moment without any sort of a deep deliberation. This impression of ours is further reinforced by the conduct of the accused in not revealing in inflicting any further stab on the person of the deceased. In such state of affairs we cannot state that there was any sort of a pre-meditation on the part of the accused to murder the deceased. 18. Taking into account the over all circumstances, emboldened we are to say, that the act of the accused cannot at all be attributed with any of the mens rea prescribed under the any one of the four classes, adumbrated under Sec.300, I.P.C., so as to make his act punishable under Sec.302, I.P.C. We can say that his act was one done with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury, which was likely to cause the death. In such a situation, he would be guilty of committing an offence under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. 19. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we feel it would not be besides justice to inflict upon him a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years. 20. As adverted to earlier, we have confirmed his conviction under Sec.324, I.P.C. As respects the sentence for such an offence we rather feel that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, as has been imposed upon him by the court below, is neither harsh; nor severe, calling for interference. 21. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused-appellant for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life, as imposed by the court below, are set aside and instead he is convicted for having committed an offence under Sec. 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years; Further his conviction and sentence under Sec.324, I.P.C, are confirmed, with a direction that both the sentences are to run concurrently. 22. The appeal is allowed to the extent hereinabove indicated.