JUDGMENT: The accused was charged for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. on the allegation that on 7.4.1991 at about 11.30 a.m. with the intention of committing murder of her mother-in-law Ramakkal, the accused stabbed her with Aruval and caused death to her. 2. The case of the prosecution on the evidence of P.Ws. is as follows: P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Ramakkal. P.W.1 has two daughters and one son Murthy and the accused is the wife of Murthy. Murthy P.W.3 and the accused got married four years prior to the occurrence and they have got a son of two years old. The accused was living in P.W.1’s house and one year prior to the occurrence, due to some family problem, the accused went to her parent’s house and she returned to P.W.1’s house one month prior to the occurrence. The accused would not listen to the words of her mother-in-law. The deceased and the accused used to frequently quarrel. According to P.W.1 about a year and eight months back, one Sunday at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 was drying tobacco in his field, the deceased was grazing buffalo in that field and the accused was grazing the goat. The deceased tied the buffalo and went to attend to the crops. The accused was sitting nearby the deceased asked the accused as to why she was sitting idle and she can do some work. The accused retorted to it stating that the deceased need not tell anything and she herself knows everything and after some time P.W. 1 heard the noise." When P.W. 1 went and saw, he saw the accused cutting his wife on her head. Then the accused stabbed the deceased on her shoulder and hip stating The deceased fainted and fell down. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. P.W.2 is the grand daughter of P.W.1 who also witnessed that occurrence and ran away from that place. P.W.1 gave water to the deceased. P.W.3 son of P.W.1 and husband of the accused on hearing about the occurrence came to the scene of occurrence and found his mother the deceased with injuries. Then P.W.3 took the injured to the private hospital by car brought by Chinnasamy and Sampath. P.W.1 gave water to the deceased. P.W.3 son of P.W.1 and husband of the accused on hearing about the occurrence came to the scene of occurrence and found his mother the deceased with injuries. Then P.W.3 took the injured to the private hospital by car brought by Chinnasamy and Sampath. P.W.4 doctor who was present in the private clinic referred that case to the General Hospital, Gobichettipalayam as the injured was in serious condition and he sent the injured by ambulance. P.Ws.1 and 3 accompanied the deceased to the hospital, Gobichettipalayam. There the injured died at 1 p.m. P.Ws.1 and 3 went to Nambiyur Police Station and gave the complaint Ex.P.1, P.W.7 recorded Ex.P-1, registered a case under Crime No.55 of 1991 under Sec.302, I.P.C., prepared F.I.R. Ex.P-8 and sent Exs.P-1 and P-8 to the Judicial Magistrate through the constable and copies of the same to the higher authorities. P.W.5 the doctor Gobichettipalayam examined the injured brought by P.W.3 at 2.15 p.m. on 7.4.1991 and found on her the following injuries. (i) An incisted wound on the left join 5cm x 3 cm x abdominal cavity opened. (ii) An incisted wound on the right temple (forehead) 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. (iii) An incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the head right parietal region. (iv) An incised wound with oblique direction 2 cm behind the wound No.3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the head. (v) An incised wound on the upper part of back 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. (vi) An incised wound on the back of right shoulder 5 cm x 4cm x 5 cm depth. (vii) An insisted wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. He gave the accident register copy Ex.P-2 and sent intimation to the Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam under Ex.P-4 with regard to admitting the patient Ramakkal in the hospital. That intimation was received by the Judicial Magistrate at 2.45 p.m. on 7.4.1991 and after receipt of it. the Judicial Magistrate went to the hospital at 2.45 p.m. on 7.4.1991 and after receipt of it the Judicial Magistrate went to the hospital at 2.55 p.m. and found the patient died. That intimation was received by the Judicial Magistrate at 2.45 p.m. on 7.4.1991 and after receipt of it. the Judicial Magistrate went to the hospital at 2.45 p.m. on 7.4.1991 and after receipt of it the Judicial Magistrate went to the hospital at 2.55 p.m. and found the patient died. P.W.9 Inspector of Police received F.I.R. took up the case for investigation, went to the hospital,on receipt of information Ex.P-3 from the General Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, He could not hold inquest on that day since it was 6.15 p.m. He received Ex.P-3 from the police station. On the information give to him he proceeded to Nambiyur P.W.1 identifying the accused, he arrested the accused and recorded the confession statement of the accused and on the portion Ex.P-9, he seized M.O.1 produced by the accused under mahazar Ex.P-10 in the presence of P.W.8. P.W.9 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the rough sketch Ex.P-13, made arrangements for taking photographs M.O.7 series, the negatives being.M.O.8 series, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-11, seized M.Os.2 to 6 from the scene of occurrence under mahazar Ex.P-12 in the presence of P.W.8. Then he returned to Nambiyur Police Station with the accused. Then P.W.9 proceeded to Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam and held inquest on the dead body, prepared inquest report Ex.P-14, examined the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem through constable along with request Ex.P-6. P.W.6 doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ramakkal and found the following injuries. (i) An incised edged wound on the left join 5 cm x 3 cm x abdominal cavity opened. Intestines, protruding out upper left ilium bone found chopped off for 5 cms distance Horizontally placed. (ii) Incised wound (R) Temple obliquely placed 3 cm x 1 cm bone deep with fracture of frontal bone. (iii) 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm coronally placed incised wound (R) parietal region extending upto mid line. (iv) 5 x.1 x 1 cm incised wound oblique direction on the head 2 cm behind wound No.3. (v) Segittally (antoro posterior) placed incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over (R) Parietal region 1 cm lateral to wound No.4, (vi) Incised wound on the upper part of back of neck horizontally placed 4 x 1 cm x 1 cm. (vii) Incised edged wound over (R) shoulder back 5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm deep. (vii) Incised edged wound over (R) shoulder back 5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm deep. He has issued the post-mortem certificate Ex.P-7, After the post-mortem, constable 1081 seized M.Os.9 to 11 from the dead body of Ramakkal and handed over to P.W.9. P.W.9 sent the accused for remand to the Magistrate. He gave requisition Ex.P-15 for sending M.Os. for chemical analysis. Ex.P-16 is the chemical analysis report and Ex.P-17 is the serilogical report. After completing the investigation, P.W.9 laid charge sheet against the accused under Sec.302. I.P.C. The accused was examined and on the evidence under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. and she denied the offence. 3. Learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial found the accused guilty under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo R.I., for six years. 4. Aggrieved against that conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 5. The appellant raised the following grounds in the appeal; The accused had no motive to attack the deceased. Ex.P-1 complaint was given in the police station only at 4.30 p.m. even though the alleged occurrence had taken place at 11.30 am and the F.I.R. was prepared only at 11.45 p.m. and thus there is a delay of more than 12 hours. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are mutually contradictory. P.W.2 is a child witness and it is unreliable as she was tutored prior to giving evidence. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. In any event, the sentence imposed is, highly excessive. 6. With regard to the contention raised by the appellant in respect of the delay in loading the complaint, the occurrence had taken place at 11.30 am and as Ramakkal since deceased was in a serious condition due to the stab injuries, P.Ws.1 and 3 took her to the nearby hospital wherein P. W.4 doctor had advised them to go to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam since treatment by him was not possible immediately they went to Gobichettipalayam Government hospital at 1.00 p.m. and where she succumbed to the injuries at 2.43 as per the evidence of P.W.5, P.Ws.1 and 3 came to Nambiyer Police Station at 4.00 p.m. and gave the complaint Ex.P-1. P.W.1 is residing at Minnakaattupalayam village, Since P.W.1’s wife was severely injured by the act of the accused, they rushed to the doctor in the first instance and on medical advice rushed to Gobichettipalayam Government Hospital at 1.00 p.m. The condition of the injured necessitated P.Ws.1 and 3 to seek medical aid and on that score, they went to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam which is a different place. After the injured died in the hospital at 2.43 p.m., P.Ws. 1 and 3 gave the complaint Ex.P-1 at 4.00 p.m. So, it cannot be stated that there was delay in giving the complaint. Anybody will be interested in taking the patient to the hospital only to save the life of the injured and then only to give complaint in the police station. On that score, P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the hospital and from there, they had to go to the Nambiyur Police Station to give complaint Ex.P-1. P.W.7 recorded the complaint of P.W.1 Ex.P-1 in Nambiyur Police Station and registered a case under Crime No.55 of 1991 under Sec.302. I.P.C. and prepared F.I.R. Ex.P-8. The attempt taken in giving the complaint Ex.P-1 to the police cannot be stated to be belated. From the hospital at Gobichettipalayam P.Ws.1 and 3 had to go to to Nambiyur Police Station to give the complaint. So, the complaint could be given only by 4.00 p.m. That cannot be said to be defective at all on the side of the prosecution. P.W.7 sent F.I.R. Ex.P-8 and the complaint Ex.P-1 to the Magistrate through P.W.8. P.W.9 the Inspector of Police while he was in the Kadathur Police Station received the information about this occurrence and he came to the Nambiyur Police Station at 6.15 p.m. on that day, received the F.I.R. and took up the case for investigation. The F.I.R. has reached the Judicial Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam at 11.45 p.m. on the same day. The F.I.R. reaching the Magistrate at 11.45 p.m., when it was registered at 4.25. p.m., cannot be said to be of considerable delay. The benefit in that aspect will not ensure to the accused. Reasonable time is taken in giving the complaint to the Police. As indicated by me already, the F.I.R. had also reason in the same night. So, I find no substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in this aspect. 7. The benefit in that aspect will not ensure to the accused. Reasonable time is taken in giving the complaint to the Police. As indicated by me already, the F.I.R. had also reason in the same night. So, I find no substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in this aspect. 7. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are mutually contradictory and not corroborative. 8. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased and the father in law of the accused and father of P.W.3 and also grandmother of P.W.2 (daughter’s daughter). The occurrence had happened at 11.30 a.m. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that some wordy altercation took place between the mother-in-law the deceased and the daughter in law the accused and the mother in law asked her daughter in law to do some work and the accused retorred to that stating that she knows everything and she stabbed the deceased on her head, shoulder and hip and immediately the deceased fell down and the accused ran away from that place. The court has put questions to P.W.2 who was a child witness and after satisfying that P.W.2 has got understanding capacity, she was examined. Even though P.W.2 is a child witness, she has clearly spoken in her evidence with regard to the occurrence. She understood the questions and has deposed. 9. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that P.W.2 being a child witness, her evidence is not reliable. 10. P.W.2 is studying III class. The court has recorded her evidence after satisfying that she has got understanding capacity. She specifically speaks in her evidence that the accused and the deceased quarrelled and the accused stabbed the deceased and as soon as she was stabbed, she fell down and the accused ran away from that place and P.W.2 also out of fear ran away from that place and informed that matter to her uncle. The court has also put questions to P.W.2 as to when she ran to her house out of rear. For that P.W.2 had replied that after the accused stabbed her grandmother the deceased and she fell down. P.W.2 ran away to her house out of fear. The court has also put questions to P.W.2 as to when she ran to her house out of rear. For that P.W.2 had replied that after the accused stabbed her grandmother the deceased and she fell down. P.W.2 ran away to her house out of fear. The court also put a further question as to whether P.W.2 ran away from that place to her house when the deceased and the accused were quarrelling. For that the reply give by P.W.2 is that only after her grandmother the deceased was stabbed. She ran to her house. So, P.W.2’s evidence is also cogent and corroborative. P.Ws.1 and 2 are eye witnesses. They have specifically spoken in their evidence implicating the accused for the occurrence. Their evidence prove that only this accused stabbed the deceased and caused death to her. P.W.3 received information from P.W.2 about the occurrence. P.W.2 has also spoken to the effect that she informed about the occurrence to P.W.3 near the place of occurrence and then she went to her brother’s house. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborative in that aspect. So, it cannot be stated that there is no corroboration on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.3 went to the scene of occurrence and found his mother the deceased with injuries on her body and he took his mother and the father to Nambiyur doctor Dhanasekar and from there, they went to Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam and after reaching there, P.W.3’s mother died. P.W.3 has spoken to the fact that there used to be quarrel between the accused and the deceased. It was elicited to P.W.1 that he did not give any complaint to Gobichettipalayam Police Station as soon his wife died. P.W.1 had stated that he did not go to Gobichettipalayam Police Station and give complaint and went only to Nambiyur Police Station and gave the complaint P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the jurisdiction police station and gave the complaint. So, nothing unnatural transpires in non-giving the complaint in Gobichettipalayam Police Station. Even though the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 are the close relatives of the deceased, I find no reason to reject their testimony and their evidence is highly reliable. The occurrence had happened in the field and only these persons were present at that time. They have spoken in their evidence with regard to the occurrence. Even though the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 are the close relatives of the deceased, I find no reason to reject their testimony and their evidence is highly reliable. The occurrence had happened in the field and only these persons were present at that time. They have spoken in their evidence with regard to the occurrence. So, it cannot be stated that their evidence is unnatural. Even though P.W.2 is a child witness, her evidence is highly reliable and she is capable of understanding and answering questions. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be said to unreliable since they are interested. Their evidence prove that only this accused during the wordy altercation stabbed the deceased and caused injuries which resulted in the death. 11. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 doctor has spoken that five injuries on the head, three injuries on the right shoulder were found on the deceased and immediately after admission in the hospital, the deceased died. P.W.5 the doctor has stated that when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, her condition was very bad and she was admitted as inpatient in the casualty ward and within a short time she died. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.5 had stated that when she was brought to the hospital, she was unconscious and her condition was very bad. So, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.5 doctor that the condition of Ramakkal since deceased was very serious because of the injuries caused to her. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establishes that only this accused caused the injuries to the deceased. P.W.6 the doctor who conducted the post-mortem found injuries on the head, shoulder and also on the stomach. He has issued postmortem certificate Ex.P7 and gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage because of the injuries sustained by her and the injuries are possible by M.O.1 and they were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course The medical evidence proves that because of the injuries sustained by her, the deceased had died. An analysis of the oral and documentary evidence proves that only this accused stabbed the deceased and caused death to her. 12. An analysis of the oral and documentary evidence proves that only this accused stabbed the deceased and caused death to her. 12. The trial court has analysed the entire evidence and found the accused guilty under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. The conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The trial court has awarded sentence of R.I. for six years. The accused is a young lady and she has got a three-year child. Taking into consideration of these facts, I feel that the sentence can be reduced and accordingly, I reduce the sentence from R.I., for six years to R.I., for three years. Except the modification in the sentence, in other respects, the appeal is dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the sentence of R.I., for a period of six years is reduced to R.I., for a period of three years.