Judgment : M. Karpagavinayagam, J. In Sessions Case No.3 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Sessions of Anna District at Dindigul, the appellant Koolu alias Kottaiya Pillai was tried and convicted for the offences under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and R.I. for six months for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. and the sentences were directed to run concurrently on the allegation that on 13. 1986, at about 3.30 p.m. at A.V. Patty village, the appellant/ husband stabbed his wife Lakshmi on the left flank and caused her death and while P.W.1 Packiam intervened, the appellant caused injury on her right index finger and thereby liable to be punished under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. To substantiate the above charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12, filed Exs.P-1 to P-15 and marked M.Os. 1 to 8. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows. The deceased Lakshmi is the second wife of the appellant Koolu alias Kottaiya Pillai. P.W.3 Sangu Pillai is the father of the deceased. He had two daughters first being one Meenakshi and the 2nd being the deceased Lakshmi. 22 years back, the said Meenakshi got married to the appellant. Since there was no issues, P.W.3 Sangupillai gave her second daughter, the deceased in marriage with the appellant 7 years back. P.W. 1 Packiam, P.W.2 Ramu Pillai, P.W.3 Sangupillai and the appellant are closely related to each other. The appellant even before the marriage with the daughters of P.W.3 was related to P.W.3, he being the son of the sister of P.W.3. Further P.W.3 is the junior paternal uncle of P.W.2, Ramu Pillai. P.W. 1 Packiam is the wife of P.W.2 Ramu Pillai. P.Ws. 1 to P.W.3 belonged to the village A.V. Patti and they are all residing in the adjacent streets in the same area of the village. 3. After the marriage, the appellant and the deceased Lakshmi were living together at the village called Poosaripatti near Vathalagundu. They were there for about 6 years. Out of their wed-lock, a child was born. But, unfortunately, the child died. When the deceased got conceived second time, P.W.3 took her to his village A.V. Patti in order to have a safe delivery. Though child was born, again unfortunately it died. They were there for about 6 years. Out of their wed-lock, a child was born. But, unfortunately, the child died. When the deceased got conceived second time, P.W.3 took her to his village A.V. Patti in order to have a safe delivery. Though child was born, again unfortunately it died. After the death of the second child, the deceased Lakshmi did not opt to go to the house of the accused/ appellant at Poosaripatti village. The appellant being a drunkard, used to get gold jewels and cash from the deceased and sell the jewels to incur his expenditure for drinking purpose. That was the reason why she decided not to go with the accused to his village. P.W.3 also instructed her not to go with the accused. 4. Eight years back, P.W.3’s wife died. So the first wife of the appellant, Meenakshi came and stayed along with her father P.W.3 at A.V. Patti Village to look after him. So, for the past one year, both Meenakshi and the deceased Lakshmi were staying with P.W.3 at A.V. Patti village itself. However, the appellant used to visit the village frequently in order to take the deceased to his village. But, invariably the deceased declined to heed to his request. Despite this, the accused came to the village often in order to insist her to come along with him. 5. One week prior to the occurrence, the appellant came to the village A.V. Patti and stayed in his aunt’s house only with the intention of taking the deceased along with him to his village. Despite his insistence, the deceased was very firm and told him that she would not come and joint with him. In this back ground, the fateful day fell on 13. 1986 at about 3.00 p.m. The appellant went to the house of the deceased and asked her to come among with him. He stood in front of the house of the deceased Lakshmi and compelled her to come with him. There was a wordy quarrel between them. At that point of time P.W. 1 Packiam who came there in search of her daughter Lakshmi happened to see the incident of the wordy quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant asked the deceased to come with him by saying, Then he snatched the thali from her neck, M.O.1 (series) by saying this. At that point of time P.W. 1 Packiam who came there in search of her daughter Lakshmi happened to see the incident of the wordy quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant asked the deceased to come with him by saying, Then he snatched the thali from her neck, M.O.1 (series) by saying this. P.W. 1 asked the appellant not to create trouble there and he could take his wife after convening a panchayat. She also questioned him as to why he should snatch away the thali from her. Then the appellant took out a knife M.O.2 kept in his trouser pocket and showed it to P.W.1. P.W.1 cried aloud. P.W.2 Ramu Pillai, the husband of P.W. 1 on hearing the shouting of P.W.1 came rushing towards the scene and asked the appellant not to stab her. The appellant threatened P.W.2 also by showing the knife. So, P.W.2 retraced his steps. Then the appellant with the knife M.O.2 stabbed his wife on the left flank. On seeing this P.W. 1 cried and intervened. The appellant stabbed P.W.1 also and caused injury on her right index finger. Thereafter, the appellant, ran way from the scene through the northern side. 6. Then both P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the victim and put her in the pial and tried to pour water on her mouth. But, unfortunately she died. Immediately thereafter P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to police station at Vadamadurai where P.W. 1 gave the complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police at 5.00 p.m. He registered the case in Crime No.50 of 1986 for the offences under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. and sent the Ex.P-1 and printed F.I.R. P-9 to the Magistrate as well as to his superior officials. 7. Then, on receipt of message, P.W. 11 Inspector of Police at about 6.15 p.m. came to the station and took up further investigation at 7.00 p.m. Thereafter he went to the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-14, in the presence of P.W.4 at about 8.30 p.m. He recovered M.O.3 blood stained earth, M.O.4 sample earth under the mahazar Ex.P-3. At 9.00 a.m. he seized M.O.1 (series) from P.W. 1 under mahazar Ex.P-4 in the presence of P.W.4. Between 9.00 am and 11.30 a.m. P.W. 11 conducted inquest and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others and prepared Ex.P-15 inquest report. At 9.00 a.m. he seized M.O.1 (series) from P.W. 1 under mahazar Ex.P-4 in the presence of P.W.4. Between 9.00 am and 11.30 a.m. P.W. 11 conducted inquest and examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others and prepared Ex.P-15 inquest report. Then he sent P.W.8 constable alongwith the dead body with the requisition for post mortem to P.W.7 doctor. 8. In the meantime, P.W.9, Sub-Inspector of Police sent the injured P.W. 1 to the doctor for treatment alongwith a memo. P.W.6 Dr.Raju, on 13. 1986 at 11.30 p.m. examined P.W. 1 and found the following injuries. “Incised would at dorsum of right index finger prosimal phalange 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm.” He issued wound certificate Ex.P-7 and opined that the injury was simple in nature. 9. On 20.3.1986 early morning 1.30 a.m. P.W. 11 Inspector of Police, on information went to the Dindigul- Madurai road and arrested the appellant in front of Sathankudi Nadar Uravinmurai Kalyana Mandapam in the presence of P.W.5. On interrogation, he gave a confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-5 and in pursuance of the said confession, P.W.11 and others were taken to the A.V. Patti Village and there M.O.2 was removed by the appellant from earth kept concealed in the house belonged to one Velliya Pillai and the same was produced to the Police which was recovered under Ex.P-6 mahazar, attested by P.W.5. On 20.3.1986 about 2.00 p.m. on receipt of requisition from P.W. 11 Inspector, P.W.7 doctor Ayisha Beevi commenced postmortem and found the following injuries: “1. A horizontal incised wound present on the left lateral side of the back 4 cm. above the hip joint measuring 4 x 2 x 12 cm. in depth. 2. An oblique incised wound present 5 cm. above the 1st injury measuring 5 x 2 x 10 cm. depth. Internal examination: 1. Tearing of the peritoneam corresponding to the injuries. About 500 CC of blood clots present in the peritonal cavity. 2. Fracture of left last lower 2 ribe on the internal 2/3rd. Stomach 600 gms. contained partially digested food particles. Kidney: Each 100 gms. A cut injury present on the lower 2/3rd of the left kidney measuring 6x2x2 cm. Tearing of the peritoneam corresponding to the injuries. About 500 CC of blood clots present in the peritonal cavity. 2. Fracture of left last lower 2 ribe on the internal 2/3rd. Stomach 600 gms. contained partially digested food particles. Kidney: Each 100 gms. A cut injury present on the lower 2/3rd of the left kidney measuring 6x2x2 cm. Corresponding to injury No.2” He issued Ex.P-8 post mortem certificate and opined mat the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury on the left kidney and the death would have occurred about 20 to 24 hours prior to post mortem. 10. After the post mortem was over P.W.8 constable recovered M.O.5 blouse, M.O.6 saree M.O.7 Thayathu, M.O.8 (series) Kail Minji and handed them over to the police Station. 11. P.W. 12 who took up the further investigation on 20.3.1986, on receipt of the M.Os. sent the same for chemical examination through requisition Ex.P-10 to the Court. P.W. 10 Head Clerk or the court received the M.Os. along with the requisition Ex.P-10 and sent them for analysis alongwith covering letter, Ex.P-11. The court received the chemical analysis report Ex.P-12 on 28. 1986 and the cerelogist’s report Ex.P-13 on 12. 1986. On 15. 1986, P.W.12 after examination of all the witnesses; filed charge sheet before the Magistrate Court against me appellant for the offences under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. 12. On committal, the trial court framed charges as referred above and commenced the trial by examining the witnesses produced by the prosecution. 13. On completion of the trial, the appellant was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incrimination circumstances available against him in the evidence brought on record. The appellant denied his complicity in the crime. He further stated that he went to the village A.V. Patti in order to take her wife the deceased to his village Poosaripatti, that she agreed to come alongwith him, that he went to Vadamadurai tailor shop and came back to the village to take her and at that time P.W.3 Sangu Pillai, P.W.2 Ramu Pillai and others caught him saying that he only stabbed his wife and ran away and produced him to the police. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. 14. However, no evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. 14. After appraisal of the evidence both oral and documentary, the trial court found the appellant guilty under Secs.302 and 324 and dealt with him as referred to earlier. Aggrieved by this, me appellant has resorted to file this appeal in this Court. 15. Mr.K. Jaganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, too us through the entire evidence brought on record and contended that in the earliest document viz., the F.I.R. Ex.P-1 given by P.W.1 which would show that the occurrence had taken place only after the deceased removed her thali from her neck and handed over the same to the accused and then asked him to go away and that only thereafter, the accused after losing his self-control took away the knife from his trouser pocket and stabbed the deceased, twice and that if this reference found in the F.I.R. is accepted to be true, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec.302. He further contended that at the most, it can be said that since the appellant committed this crime on the spur of the moment while deprived of his power of self-control on grave and sudden provocation, the offence would fall under Exception-I of Sec.300, I.P.C. which attracts the penal Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. and not Sec.302, I.P.C. Government Advocate Mr.S.Somasundaram was heard. 16. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye-witnesses. They are close relations to both the deceased and the accused. They have no motive to speak falsehood against the accused. It cannot also be contended that they are the interested witnesses. Of course, it can be stated that both P.Ws.1 and 2 are residing in the same village in which the father of the deceased was also residing. So even assuming that they are the interested witnesses, the court would approach the evidence of these witnesses who are close relations, with care and caution to exclude the possibility of false implication. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would inspire confident in the mind of this Court to conclude that the appellant alone has committed this crime. The occurrence took place at 3.30 p.m. Immediately P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Police Station. P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case at 5.00 p.m. on the very same day. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would inspire confident in the mind of this Court to conclude that the appellant alone has committed this crime. The occurrence took place at 3.30 p.m. Immediately P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Police Station. P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case at 5.00 p.m. on the very same day. The F.I.R. reached the court at 7.20 p.m. Inquest was held between 9.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m. Inquest report also has reached the court next day at 3.30 p.m. So there is no delay in registering the F.I.R. and the reaching of F.I.R. to the court. The evidence of these witnesses are as well fully in consonance with the medical evidence adduced by P.Ws.6 and 7 doctors P.W.3 father of the deceased also would speak to the fact about the continuous stay of the deceased in his house for one year. 17. Besides these pieces of evidence one other importance piece the serologist’s report. P.W. 11 arrested the accused on the next day early morning 1.30 a.m. and on his confession the blood stained knife M.O.2 was recovered. When M.O.2 alongwith other M.Os. were sent for chemical analysis through court, P.W. 10 court headclerk received the Chemical analysis report Ex.P-12 and the serologist’s report Ex.P-13. Ex.P-13 would show that both the blouse worn by the deceased i.e., M.O.5 and the knife M.O.2 recovered from the accused contained human blood. Furthermore, the report shows that the blood group found on the blouse tallies with the blood group in the knife. It is also clear from the evidence of P.W.3 that the deceased declined to go along with her husband the appellant because he used to get cash and jewels from the deceased and spending them for his drinking purposes. So, there is no doubt in the fact mat the appellant had inflicted the injuries on the left flank of the deceased since she refused to go alongwith him. 18. At this juncture, we have to consider the evidence relating to the aspect as to how when and in what manner the accused took out the knife from his trouser packet and stabbed the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. 18. At this juncture, we have to consider the evidence relating to the aspect as to how when and in what manner the accused took out the knife from his trouser packet and stabbed the deceased as alleged by the prosecution. It is clearly stated by P.W.1 in the F.I.R. that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, that the appellant compelled the deceased to come along with him and that the deceased suddenly removed her thali from her neck and handed it over to the accused and stated, Of course, P.W. 1 does not speak about this while she deposed in the court. On the contrary, she has stated in her evidence that the accused snatched her thali from the deceased and that when it was questioned by P.W.1, the accused took out a knife from the trouser packet and stabbed her. So, the earlier case as referred to in the F.I.R. has been completely given up by P.W.1 while deposing in court. P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police in his cross examination stated that P.W.1 told the police that the deceased removed her thali and handed over the same to the accused and asked him to go away with the thali by saying that she would not come alongwith him. From this it is clear that P.W.1 stated in Ex.P-1 and in her statement during the course of investigation that the deceased removed her thali and handed over the same to the appellant and then the appellant took out a knife and stabbed. 19. So, in that view of the matter, we have to decide whether the accused can be said to have committed the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that for the past one week the appellant came and stayed in her aunt’s house for the purpose of taking the deceased to his village. At 3.30 p.m. on 13. 1986, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, She also admits that there was exchange of abusive words between the accused and the deceased. However, she did not depose as to the exact words used by the accused and the deceased, in the quarrel. At 3.30 p.m. on 13. 1986, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, She also admits that there was exchange of abusive words between the accused and the deceased. However, she did not depose as to the exact words used by the accused and the deceased, in the quarrel. In Ex.P-1 also, P.W. 1 stated that there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and that the deceased stated that she would not come along with him to this village and so saying and removed thali and gave it to him. So, having enraged at this the appellant took out the knife and stabbed her. 20. For deciding the nature of the offence, the following things have to be taken into consideration: .(1) For the past one year, the appellant, has been frequently visiting the village of the deceased on order to take her back to his village. .(2) For the past one week prior to the date of occurrence, he was residing in the house of her aunt in order to convince and to take back his wife to his village. .(3) The occurrence took place in day light viz., at 3.30 p.m. in the presence of the villagers like P.W. 1, P.W.2 and others, in front of the house of P.W.3. .(4) The absence of the material to show that he came to the village with the knife only with the plan to finish her of once for all. .(5) As per Ex.P-5 confession, the accused is only an agriculturist. So in a village, the villagers used to keep a knife with them either for safety or for removing or cutting plaints or removing thorns found in the pathway. .(6) Prior to the occurrence as per the evidence of P.W.1 there was heated exchange between the accused and the deceased. .(7) The last straw on the camel’s back is the fact of the deceased by suddenly removing her thali and handing over the same to the accused asking him to go away once for all, since she did not want to live with him as wife. So, in the light of above circumstances, we have to consider whether this offence would fall under Sec.300, Exception 1 which would attract punishment under Sec.304, Part I. 21. So, in the light of above circumstances, we have to consider whether this offence would fall under Sec.300, Exception 1 which would attract punishment under Sec.304, Part I. 21. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court and other High Courts. .22. The Supreme Court of India, in the leading case of KM. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 M.L.J. (Crl.) 531: A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605: (1962)2 S.C.J. 347: (1962)1 Crl.L.J. 521 has explained the scope of the first exception to Sec.300, I.P.C. His Lordship Justice Subba Rao (as he then was) who spoke for the Bench has stated thus: .“The Indian Law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus: (1) The test of ”grave and sudden“ provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first exception to Sec.300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influen6e of passion arising from . that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.” .23. While considering similar facts, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held in Madhavan v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1966 Ker. 258 as follows: ."Bearing the above principles in mind, it will be seen that the threat of the wife to leave the appellant for ever without obviously any prior reason is indeed provocative and her act in removing the thali from her neck which is attributable to the separation of her marital tie with the appellant and throwing it in his face was quite sufficient to make him lose his self-control and give him the benefit of Exception I to Sec.300 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, we give the appellant the benefit of this Exception and convict him under Sec.304, Part.1 of the Indian Penal Code instead of under Sec.302. Taking all the circumstances into account and the way in which the incident took place we feel that the ends of justice will be satisfied by sentencing the appellant.....in modification of the conviction and sentence entered by the court below against the appellant.” .24. A Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Gandaram Taria v. State, 1982 Crl. L.J. 1229, has held as follows: .“The question whether the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation within the meaning of Exception 1 to Sec.300 is a Question of fact. Something which is done suddenly and in the heat of passion caused by provocation is done impulsively and at a time when there is a temporary suspension of reason and an act so done is not controlled or planned or perceived or deliberate. The impact of provocation on human frailty is to be judged in the context of the social position and environments of the person concerned. The restraint which is generally shown by sophisticated persons used to modern living is hardly to be expected in the case of a villager. There must, however, be circumstances to show that the provocation was both grave and sudden.” 25. A Division Bench of this Court in Vadivel Padayachi, In re., 1972 L.W. (Crl). 34, while referring about Exception I to Sec.300 of I.P.C. observed as follows: “A hyper-sensitive person, who loses his power of self control at the slightest provocation would not be entitled to the benefit of the Exception to Sec.300, I.P.C. Deprivation of the power of self-control must be the result of provocation, which is both sudden and grave. Provocation is an external atimulus which can be objectively ganged. But, loss of self-control, is a subjective phenomenon which is difficult, to divine. To peep into the mind of the accused as it was at the relevant time is seldom possible. The state of his mind can only be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, from the manner in which he reacted to the circumstances, and most important of all, from his own description of the State of his mind. To peep into the mind of the accused as it was at the relevant time is seldom possible. The state of his mind can only be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, from the manner in which he reacted to the circumstances, and most important of all, from his own description of the State of his mind. His description of his subjective condition may be true or false, but the truth or falsity of his description is fortunately susceptible of verification with reference to relevant objective facts. Before embarking upon the process of such verification, the court must imaginatively reconstruct the psychological situation in which the accused found himself whilst be committed the crime in question and judge his behaviour unhampered by any inflexible rule of thumb.” 26. In the light of the guidelines given in the decisions referred above, we have to go into the facts, in order to decide as to whether the offence committed in this case would come under Sec.302, I.P.C. or it would come under Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. Even according to P.W. 1, the appellant frequently was visiting the village of the parents of the deceased in order to take her along with him to his village. She further states in her deposition that he was there in the village for one week prior to the occurrence, in his aunt’s house only for the purpose of taking her to his village. So, it cannot be contended that the accused came to the village for some other bad motive, other than the purpose of taking his wife back to his village, P.W. 1 further states in the cross examination that there was heated exchange between the appellant and the deceased in front of the house of the deceased, that too, in the presence of P.W.1 and others. Suddenly the deceased removed her thali and handed over the same to the accused saying that “You take your thali with you. Go away I won’t come with you.” 27. It was at that point of time, the appellant on noticing the conduct of the deceased after losing his self-control and getting provoked took out the knife and stabbed her on the flank. Go away I won’t come with you.” 27. It was at that point of time, the appellant on noticing the conduct of the deceased after losing his self-control and getting provoked took out the knife and stabbed her on the flank. It is important to note that the accused took out the knife from his underwear pocket, only after the deceased removed her thali and asked him to go away by handing over the thali to him. The fact that he was patiently waiting for about one week by taking food in his aunt’s house with the stern hope of taking her back would show his real wish to take back her wife. When he saw the atrocious conduct of the deceased by removing the thali and handing over the same and asking him to go away saying that she won’t come with him., he loss his self control which gave rise to the sudden and grave provocation. So, this aspect of provocation on the part of the accused has to be judged in the context of the social position and the environment of the appellant. The appellant who is an unsophisticated rustic villager cannot be expected to weigh the consequences of his act in a golden balance. The reaction of the sophisticated persons used to be shown in modern living cannot be compared to the rustic villager like the appellant herein. As referred to in the judgment in Vadivel Padayachi, In re. 1972 L.W. (Crl.) 34 the loss of self-control is a subjective phenomenon which is difficult to define. The state of mind of the appellant can only be inferred from surrounding circumstances, from the manner in which he reacted to the circumstances, and most importance of all, from his own description of his state of mind. As referred to earlier, the Apex Court in Nanavati’s case, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605, has held mat mere words and gestures may give rise to sudden provocation losing self-control of the person concerned. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Herein is the case where the appellant admittedly went to the village for taking her wife with him. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Herein is the case where the appellant admittedly went to the village for taking her wife with him. But, at the house of father-in-law, in front of the house and that too, in the presence of other villagers, in a day light when a married woman takes the extreme step of removing the thali which is considered to be sacred one and handing over the same to the accused/ husband, that will definitely give rise to the sudden and grave provocation and as such we feel that the fact of the appellant in taking out the knife kept inside his trouser pocket and inflicting injuries on the flank of his wife would definitely fall under Exception 1 of Sec.300, I.P.C. 28. Mr.S.Somasundaram, learned Government Advocate also fairly submits that the case, as such, wound fall under Sec.300, Exception 1 and as such the appellant is liable to be punished for the offence under Sec.304, Part I. 29. In view of the foregoing analysis, we feel that the conviction and the sentence for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. as rendered by the court below is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be set aside. Instead, we convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. Further We are brought to notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellant/accused is still in jail and he has been undergoing imprisonment for the past 9 years. Hence, we feel mat the ends of justice would be met by imposing a punishment to undergo imprisonment for a period already undergone by the appellant. The conviction and sentence under Sec.324, I.P.C. are confirmed. Subject to these modifications with regard to the conviction and sentence, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.