S. N. PHUKAN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal from jail is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypora, in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE accused-appellant was booked for trial under Section 302, IPC for intentionally causing death of Kalia Praska on 19-1-1993 between 9. 00 and 10. 00 P. M. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty under the aforesaid section and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 19-1-1992 at about 9. 00 P. M. the accused all on a sudden came with a knife, stabbed the deceased Kalia and fled away. It may be stated that the deceased was the husband of the sister of the accused. At the time of occurrence, P. W. 4, the wife of the deceased and sister of the accused, was cleaning utensils and she saw the occurrence. She raised hullah hearing which Dudumani (P. W. 3) came and she disclosed to him that the accused-appellant had stabbed her deceased husband and run away. The deceased died on the spot. Next day, P. W. 3 informed the occurrence to the Sarpanch Purna (P. W. 2 ). Thereafter, first information report (Ext. 5) was lodged by P. W. 3 at the Rayagada police-station. The case was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted. ( 4 ) THE accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence did not choose to examine any witness. ( 5 ) FROM the evidence of the doctor (P. W. 1) who conducted autopsy; we find that only one injury was found on the dead body of the deceased, namely, incised wound 1"x 1/4"x cavity deep on right side of xiphi-sternam. On dissection, he found large amount of clot just below the sternum. pleura, lungs, pericardium below the injury were found to be incised. Both left and right ventricle of the heart were found to be incised one inch in length transversely on the anterior aspect, almost in the middle. According to P. W. 1, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor has further deposed that the internal injuries correspond to the external injury. Ext. 1 is the post mortem report. According to P. W. 1, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor has further deposed that the internal injuries correspond to the external injury. Ext. 1 is the post mortem report. ( 6 ) P. W. 5 is the investigating officer. He had prepared the inquest report (Ext. 6) and had also seized the blood-stained earth and sample earth from the spot where the dead body of the deceased was lying. Ext. 4 is the seizure list. From Ext. 6, we find that only one injury was found on the, dead body, which was on the chest. ( 7 ) IN view of the above evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased Kalia met with a homicidal death. The only question is, whether the accused was the perpetrator of the crime. ( 8 ) P. W. 4, Somi Praska, is the only eye witness to the occurrence. She is the wife of the deceased and sister of the accused-appellant. She has categorically stated that after taking food, when her husband had gone to the backyard to urinate, the accused came with a knife and gave a blow on his chest. Thereafter, the accused fled away. She cried shouting, "sabana is fleeing away killing my husband". Hearing her cry, P. W. 3 came and she informed him about the occurrence. P. W. 3 has fully corroborated the statement of P. W. 4. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 is definitely a natural witness inasmuch as late at night, after everybody had taken food, she was the only person present in her house. An attempt was made to suggest that it was not possible on the part of P. W. 4 to recognise the accused as the night was dark. Since the accused is the own brother of P. W. 4, this submission is not acceptable inasmuch as from voice, gait, etc. , it is always possible for a sister to recognise her brother. In fact, a suggestion has been made to P. W. 4 in cross-examination that the accused after assaulting fled away through the house of P. W. 3. In other words, the defence has admitted the presence of the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence. , it is always possible for a sister to recognise her brother. In fact, a suggestion has been made to P. W. 4 in cross-examination that the accused after assaulting fled away through the house of P. W. 3. In other words, the defence has admitted the presence of the accused-appellant at the place of occurrence. ( 10 ) IN view of the above evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that P. W. 4, who is the sole eye, witness; is a reliable witness and we can repose confidence in her. ( 11 ) IN the written notes filed by the learned legal aid counsel for the accused-appellant,emphasis has been laid on the point that the deceased was lying on the verandah of the accused, which is contrary to the evidence of P. W. 4. But, it has come out from the evidence on record that the houses of the accused, deceased and informant are close to each other. Therefore, on this discrepancy, we cannot discard the evidence of the sister of the accused regarding the accused stabbing the deceased. ( 12 ) THE first information report was lodged on 21-1-1993 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 19-1-1993. From a reading of the first information report, we find that the cause of delay has been sufficiently explained inasmuch as it has been stated that on the next day of the occurrence, the informant reported the matter to the Sarpanch and other villagers in the morning: As no bus was running in the afternoon, he came to the police-station in the next morning. We accept the explanation. Of course, delay in filing the first information report is fatal ,to the prosecution case. But it cannot be said so in the case in hand as the cause of delay has been sufficiently explained. ( 13 ) FIRST information report is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. Nonetheless, it is a very valuable document inasmuch it gives out the case of the prosecution at the first point of time: ( 14 ) IN the present case, the first information report is an elaborate one. On going through it, we find that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant regarding giving of Salap liquor. Other persons were present when they were quarrelling. On going through it, we find that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant regarding giving of Salap liquor. Other persons were present when they were quarrelling. We also find from the first information report that the deceased Kalia used to quarrel with his family after taking liquor and used to harass P. W. 4, which naturally annoyed her brother, the accused. ( 15 ) UNDER these circumstances, we hold that there was a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased, and the accused gave only one blow to the deceased. In this view of the matter, according to us, the conviction of the accused under Section 302, IPC is not sustainable, and it is a fit case for conviction under Section 304, Part-1, IPC. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal in part by converting the conviction from Section 302, IPC to Section 304, Part-1, IPC, and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. He shall get the benefit of set off of the period of imprisonment already undergone. ( 17 ) A. PASAYAT, J. , I agree. Appeal partly allowed. . .