JUDGMENT - P.V. HARDAS, J.:---The appellant in the present appeal assails his conviction and sentence for an offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for 6 years, as recorded by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1998. 2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are set out as under :--- The appellant was working as a mason at the various sites which were managed by P.W. 13 Prabhakar Asolkar. The deceased Vinayak Laximan Khamble was also working as a mason with P.W. 13 Prabhakar. On 21st February, 1998 at about 6.45 p.m. P.W. 1 Ramchandra Patil alongwith another mason P.W. 8 Mahadev Patil were proceeding to the market for ascertaining the availability of a mason for dressing laterite stones. Both of them were proceeding on their bicycles. When they reached near the house of Vidhyadhar Kakodkar, which is said to be near the main road, they saw the appellant sitting on a parapet of a well, situated inside the compound of Mr. Kakodkar. The appellant waived to P.W. 1 Ramchandra, who also waived in return. P.W. 1 Ramchandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev then proceeded towards the market and when they reached near Aunty's bar, they met deceased Vinayak. P.W. 11 Balu Dhatekar and P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar Gosavi, who were coming from the market side, that is, in the opposite direction. Inquiry was made from deceased Vinayak whether he had seen any stone dresser in the market, to which Vinayak replied in the negative. In view of the reply of the deceased Vinayak, P.W. 1 Ramchandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar, P.W. 11 Balu and the deceased started back open their bicycles. Soon as they reached near the house of Kakodkar, the appellant, who was said to have been sitting on the parapet of the well, asked the deceased to stop and came near the deceased. The deceased placed his cycle on the stand and the appellant came near him and gave a slap on his face. Thereafter there was a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased Vinayak. During the scuffle the appellant stepped back two spaces and took a knife M.O. 10 from his waist and stabbed deceased Vinayak on his chest. Due to the injury, deceased Vinayak fell on the ground. Thereafter there was a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased Vinayak. During the scuffle the appellant stepped back two spaces and took a knife M.O. 10 from his waist and stabbed deceased Vinayak on his chest. Due to the injury, deceased Vinayak fell on the ground. All the other companions of deceased Vinayak pounced on the appellant and caught hold of him while P.W. 10 Gunaji Mirashi came rushing there and took away the knife from the hands of the appellant and threw it in the premises of Mr. Kakodkar. Thereafter, deceased Vinayak began vomiting and there was profuse bleeding from his wound. Attempt was made to administer soda and water to the deceased but, due to the vomits, the deceased was not in a position to drink either the soda or the water. A police jeep came to the scene of occurrence and in the said jeep deceased Vinayak was shifted to the hospital at Kakoda. Deceased Vinayak was accompanied by P.W. 1 Ramchandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev. At Kakoda Hospital deceased Vinayak was requested to be shifted to the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim. While on the way to Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim, P.W. 1 Ramchandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev felt that the deceased had breathed his last at Tilamot and, therefore, instead of taking him to Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim, deceased Vinayak was taken to Hospicio Hospital. At the Hospicio Hospital, Margao, deceased Vinayak was examined by P.W. 15 Dr. Antonio Colaco, who, on examination found that the deceased was dead. An entry to that effect was made in the register maintained at the Hospicio Hospital, Margao and the entry is at Exhibit P.W. 15/A. 3. The said police jeep had arrived at the scene of offence on an information which was received through an anonymous telephone call by P.W. 16 P.I. Mahesh Gaonkar, who then was in-charge of the Curchorem Police Station. He had rushed to the spot alongwith his staff and had assisted the companions of deceased Vinayak in shifting him to the Hospital. P.W. 16 Mahesh then received a message that deceased Vinayak was declared dead at the Hospicio Hospital. P.W. 16 Mahesh had directed P.S.I. Naik to proceed to the scene of occurrence for recording of the panchanama. P.W. 1 Ramchandra was brought to the Police Station and his complaint at Exhibit P.W. 1/A was recorded. P.W. 16 Mahesh then received a message that deceased Vinayak was declared dead at the Hospicio Hospital. P.W. 16 Mahesh had directed P.S.I. Naik to proceed to the scene of occurrence for recording of the panchanama. P.W. 1 Ramchandra was brought to the Police Station and his complaint at Exhibit P.W. 1/A was recorded. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence vide Curchorem Police Station Crime No. 15/98 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was registered. During the course of investigation the knife which was tossed in the premises of Mr. Kakodkar by P.W. 10 Gunaji was attached in the presence of P.W. 3 Bobby D'Silva. The appellant was arrested and his clothes were attached vide Exhibit P.W. 5/A in the presence of P.W. 5 Hemant Naik. The scene of offence panchanama and the sketch of the scene was drawn in the presence of P.W. 6 Jose D'Silva and the scene of offence panchanama is at Exhibit P.W. 6/A Colly. The inquest panchanama at Exhibit P.W. 7/A was drawn in the presence of P.W. 7 Domnic Barreto. The deceased had been initially examined by P.W. 4 Dr. Geeta Kakodkar and she had found the condition of the deceased precarious and, therefore, she had referred the deceased to the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim. The certificate issued by P.W. 4 Dr. Geeta is at Exhibit P.W. 4/A. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by P.W. 2 Dr. Avinash Pujari and the postmortem report is at Exhibit P.W. 2/A. P.W. 2 Dr. Avinash had noticed (1) incised stab wound with clean, clear cut even margins. Both angles acute, lower angle more acute than upper angle. Fresh. It is elliptical 2.5 x 0.5 cms. x cavity deep. It was located on chest front left side 18.0 cms. below medical end of collar bone, 4.0 cms. away from midline, 7.0 cms. from left nipple oblique, upper end/angle from midline, lower angle nearer to midline. This is caused by a sharp edged weapon, antemortem-in nature. (2) Linear abrasion red fresh, 3.0 x 0.2 cms. on left knee along joint line on outer aspect caused by sharp/pointed object, antemortem in nature. On dissection of the external injury No. 1, he had noticed that it had pierced the skin, subcutaneous tissue underneath with blood infiltration in surrounding area. (2) Linear abrasion red fresh, 3.0 x 0.2 cms. on left knee along joint line on outer aspect caused by sharp/pointed object, antemortem in nature. On dissection of the external injury No. 1, he had noticed that it had pierced the skin, subcutaneous tissue underneath with blood infiltration in surrounding area. It had cut the cartilage of fifth rib on left side obliquely in the direction of external injury. It had further injured parietal pleura, entered chest cavity. It had further pierced the parietal pericardium, entered pericardial cavity pierced the anterior wall of left ventricle, entered the left ventricular chamber, pierced the posterior wall of left ventricle in same direction and came out with opening of 0.5 x 0.2 cms. According to P.W. 2 Dr. Avinash the injury No. 1 was individually fatal in ordinary course of nature. According to him, the deceased had died due to haemorrhage and shock due to the incised stab wound on chest involving heart by sharp edged weapon. During the course of investigation, statements of P.W. 1 Ramchandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar and P.W. 11 Balu, who were the eye-witnesses, came to be recorded. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of P.W. 10 Gunaji. P.W. 12 Desmond Cardozo has drawn the sketch map which is at Exhibit P.W. 12/B Colly. 4. On the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses out of which P.W. 1 Ramchandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar and P.W. 11 Balu are the eye-witnesses. P.W. 10 Gunaji reached the scene of occurrence after the fatal blow had been delivered by the appellant and had snatched the knife from the hand of the appellant. 5. The defence of the appellant during the trial was that in view of an earlier quarrel with the deceased on the same day, the deceased Vinayak accompanied by P.W. 1 Ramchandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar, P.W. 10 Gunaji and P.W. 11 Balu dragged him as he was on his way to his room from the well and assaulted him. During the scuffle, according to the appellant, the knife was wielded by P.W. 10 Gunaji and he attempted to stab the appellant with the said knife. The appellant evaded the blow and the knife struck on the chest of deceased Vinayak. The appellant, therefore, stated that in order to cover up their own crime, all the witnesses had foisted a false case against him that he had stabbed the deceased Vinayak with the knife. The learned Judge repelled the defence of the appellant but, however, found that an offence under section 302 had not been made out and, therefore, the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 6. P.W. 1 Ramachandra stated in his evidence that when he alongwith P.W. 8 Mahadev were proceeding to the market for ascertaining the availability of a mason for dressing the laterite stones, they had seen the appellant sitting on the parapet of the well situated in the premises of Mr. Kakodkar. The appellant had waived at them and P.W. 1 Ramachandra had acknowledged by waiving at him. They proceeded further towards the market and after going for some distance they met the deceased Vinayak, P.W. 9 Dyneshwar and P.W. 11 Balu. Inquiry was made with the deceased Vinayak whether he had seen any mason for dressing the stones in the market and on receiving a negative reply all of them turned back for going the way P.W. 1 Ramachandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev had come. According to P.W. 1 Ramachandra, when they reached near the house of Mr. Kakodkar, the appellant wished deceased Vinayak and told him to stop. Deceased Vinayak, accordingly, stopped his bicycle and kept it on the stand. The appellant came near the deceased Vinayak and slapped him on his face. Thereafter a scuffle started between the deceased Vinayak and the appellant. In the said scuffle, the appellant took two spaces behind, removed a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased Vinayak. P.W. 1 Ramachandra states that he and P.W. 8 Mahadev caught the appellant while P.W. 10 Gunaji removed the knife from the hand of the appellant and tossed it in the premises of Mr. Kakodkar. The deceased was vomiting and there was profuse bleeding from his wound. P.W. 1 Ramachandra states that he and P.W. 8 Mahadev caught the appellant while P.W. 10 Gunaji removed the knife from the hand of the appellant and tossed it in the premises of Mr. Kakodkar. The deceased was vomiting and there was profuse bleeding from his wound. The other companions tried to administer water and soda to the deceased Vinayak but deceased Vinayak was not in a position to drink either the soda or the water. Meanwhile a police jeep arrived on the scene of offence and they were first taken to a Hospital and thereafter the deceased Vinayak was shifted to the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim. While on the way to the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim, near Tilamol the deceased breathed his last. He was, therefore, taken to Hospicio Hospital, Margao, where P.W. 15 Dr. Antonio Colaco pronounced him dead. P.W. 1 Ramachandra stands amply corroborated and in fact with a great degree of mathematical precision by the report lodged by him at Exhibit P.W. 1/A, which came to be recorded. P.W. 1 Ramachandra has been cross-examined by the Counsel with all the skill at his command. P.W. 1 Ramachandra is said to have fumbled in the cross-examination on the points as to who had actually caught hold of the appellant. Initially he had stated that he knew the appellant only by face but then admitted in cross-examination that he knew by name as well and that he was knowing him for some years. They were on visiting terms to each others house. To all the suggestions relating to the defence of the appellant, P.W. 1 Ramachandra had denied those suggestions. 7. P.W. 8 Mahadev was examined by the prosecution and he had also corroborated what P.W. 1 Ramachandra stated barring slight discrepancies. P.W. 8 Mahadev does not say that the appellant had taken two spaces behind and then ripped out the knife from his waist. Further he stated in the cross-examination that when they had returned alongwith deceased Vinayak and others, the accused was going back to his house, that is, at the place where he was staying on rent. He also stated that P.W. 10 Gunaji was coming behind them on foot since he had alighted from the bus. Further he stated in the cross-examination that when they had returned alongwith deceased Vinayak and others, the accused was going back to his house, that is, at the place where he was staying on rent. He also stated that P.W. 10 Gunaji was coming behind them on foot since he had alighted from the bus. He also stated in the cross-examination that he had not noticed P.W. 10 Gunaji when the police jeep had come and he had also not seen P.W. 11 Balu and P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar. 8. P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar speaks about meeting P.W. 1 Ramachandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev and P.W. 1 Ramchandra making inquiry about the availability of a mason for dressing laterite stones. He further says on the reply of deceased Vinayak that a mason was not available, all of them including the deceased started returning. He stated that as they near the scene of occurrence, the appellant, who was seen sitting on the parapet of the well, on seeing deceased Vinayak called him out by saying 'Vinya'. He further stated that the appellant came rushing towards deceased Vinayak, caught hold of the bracket of the bicycle and slapped deceased Vinayak and while deceased Vinayak was putting his bicycle on its stand, the appellant stabbed deceased Vinayak by removing a knife from his waist. This witness claimed that he shouted loudly and called others for help and while the appellant was in the process of giving another blow on the deceased Vinayak, P.W. 8 Mahadev and P.W. 1 Ramachandra caught the appellant, while P.W. 10 Gunaji removed the knife from the hand of the appellant. This witness stated that he went thereafter to a neighbour's place and informed the maternal uncle of the appellant Baburao Patil, who was examined as D.W. 1, that the appellant had stabbed deceased Vinayak. The maternal uncle Baburao came running to deceased Vinayak. In the meantime, some one had brought water and soda and that was being administered to deceased Vinayak. This witness then stated that he went on bicycle to the market for arranging a vehicle for shifting deceased Vinayak to the hospital. Since he could not locate any vehicle, he returned to the scene and learnt that the police had come to the spot and had taken the deceased Vinayak to the hospital. This witness then stated that he went on bicycle to the market for arranging a vehicle for shifting deceased Vinayak to the hospital. Since he could not locate any vehicle, he returned to the scene and learnt that the police had come to the spot and had taken the deceased Vinayak to the hospital. This witness makes no reference about the scuffle which took place between the deceased Vinayak and the appellant nor does he refer to the fact that the appellant had stepped back two spaces before delivering a stab blow on the chest of the deceased Vinayak. In the cross-examination he had admitted that he did not know from where P.W. 10 Gunaji came and he had voluntarily gone to the Police Station for recording his statement. 9. P.W. 11 Balu had deposed on similar lines. He, however, makes a reference to the fact that there was a fight between the deceased Vinayak and the appellant. The other part regarding stabbing, the appellant being caught by P.W. 1 Ramachandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev and P.W. 10 Gunaji snatching the knife from the grasp of the appellant is stated by him. In the cross-examination he stated that the knife was thrown by P.W. 10 Gunaji at a distance of about 4 to 5 metres. He had also stated that P.W. 10 Gunaji was in the room of Sanjay, which was at a distance of about 15 to 16 metres away from the place of occurrence and from the said room of Sanjay the place of the incident was visible. He also stated that P.W. 10 Gunaji was present at the time of the incident. He has of course denied the suggestions regarding the defence which has been set up by the appellant. 10. The prosecution had examined P.W. 10 Gunaji Mirashi. Gunaji stated in his evidence that on the day of the incident while he was sitting in the room of Sanjay he heard a noise of somebody quarrelling on the road. He, therefore, alongwith Sanjay came out on the road and saw deceased Vinayak lying on the road with an injury on his chest. He further stated that he saw the appellant with a knife in his hand and was caught by P.W. 1 Ramachandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev. The appellant was moving the knife here and there saying that he should be left alone. He further stated that he saw the appellant with a knife in his hand and was caught by P.W. 1 Ramachandra and P.W. 8 Mahadev. The appellant was moving the knife here and there saying that he should be left alone. P.W. 10 Gunaji stated that he removed the knife from the grasp of appellant and threw it in the compound of Mr. Kakodkar. He had shown the knife to the police and it was attached. He identified the same knife as M.O. 10 before the Court. P.W. 10 Gunaji also denied the suggestions put to him in cross-examination regarding the defence of the appellant. 11. This is a case where there are 4 eye-witnesses and strong circumstantial evidence. The report of the Forensics Science Laboratory at Exhibit P.W. 16/A shows that the clothes of the appellant, the clothes of the deceased and the knife were stained with human blood. The group could not be determined. 12. Mr. P.P. Singh, the learned Counsel, who has ably argued the appeal on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W. 1 Ramchandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar and P.W. 11 Balu are enough to discredit the entire prosecution case. According to him, the variations, which I have noticed earlier, are fatal to the prosecution case. According to him, therefore, the witnesses do not corroborate each other on material particulars and, therefore, the entire prosecution case is to be jettisoned. He has also submitted that in this case the truth and the falsehood are so inextricably intertwined that they cannot be separated, with the result that the entire prosecution case should fail. He has made a very scathing attack on P.W. 10 Gunaji and particularly of his conduct. P.W. 10 Gunaji had stated that he heard a noise while in cross-examination he had stated that the noise was not audible. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the conduct of P.W. 10 Gunaji is extremely suspicious. P.W. 10 Gunaji suddenly disappears from the scene of occurrence and is not seen by his co-workers for about 2 to 3 days. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the conduct of P.W. 10 Gunaji is extremely suspicious. P.W. 10 Gunaji suddenly disappears from the scene of occurrence and is not seen by his co-workers for about 2 to 3 days. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the conduct of P.W. 10 Gunaji probablise the defence of the appellant that the deceased Vinayak received the stab blow at the hands of P.W. 10 Gunaji. 13. Mr. Lawande, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that the discrepancies which have been brought out during the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses are extremely minor. According to him, on the material aspects the witnesses remained unshaken. He has stated that while narrating the incident witnessed by different persons there is bound to be slight discrepancies in the narration. Mathematic certainties or precision can never be expected from witnesses who depose from there memory regarding the incident which had happened some days earlier. According to him the defence witnesses examined by the appellant do not stand the scrutiny of the Court and no reliance whatsoever can be placed on their testimony. Therefore, according to him, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, who have shown remarkable thoroughness in the preparation of the appeal, I have examined the judgment, the evidence and the other documents proved by the prosecution. As noticed by me earlier, undoubtedly, there are minor variations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly P.W. 1 Ramachandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar and P.W. 11 Balu. Minor variations are in themselves a strong pointer in favour of the witness speaking the truth. When persons witness a ghastly attack, different persons react differently. Human memory does not grasp the sequence of the events in the manner they have occurred. Human memory also does not retain minor details. The principal event remains invariably impressed on the memory of the witness. The Court should not be swayed by minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter or substratum. Minor variations are bound to be there. Human memory also does not retain minor details. The principal event remains invariably impressed on the memory of the witness. The Court should not be swayed by minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter or substratum. Minor variations are bound to be there. What the courts should appreciate is whether the substrata of the prosecution case is demolished or whether by virtue of the minor variations the evidence of the witnesses becomes irreconcilable. Major variations in the evidence at times may unerringly lead the Court to a situation that acceptance of evidence of any one witness would necessarily be destructive of the evidence of the other. In other words if the variations create a situation where the Court finds accepting the evidence of any one witness would destroy the evidence of the other witness, the Court would be entitled to disregard the prosecution witness in toto. Even then, efforts have to be made to separate the grain from the chaff, before the evidence is thrown overboard. 15. In the present case the discrepancies, which have been brought out in the cross-examination, though are all on extremely minor points, do not affect the fabric of the prosecution. Reading the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination it does not appear to me that there is any discrepancy or variance in the prosecution assertion that the deceased Vinayak was stabbed by the appellant. Though it has been urged before me with great persuasiveness by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is self destructive and cannot be accepted at all, I am unable to agree with this proposition as I find that at the close of their cross-examination the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ramachandra, P.W. 8 Mahadev, P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar and P.W. 11 Balu have emerged as truthful witnesses, though they bear a faint stigma of either exaggerating or improving their evidence but that by itself would not be enough to discard their evidence completely. 16. It is next suggested that it was P.W. 10 Gunaji who was the assailant and the injury to the deceased Vinayak was caused at his hand. Reliance is placed on the evidence of the defence witnesses who are D.W. 1 Baburao Patil and D.W. 2 Gunjappa Gadhi. 16. It is next suggested that it was P.W. 10 Gunaji who was the assailant and the injury to the deceased Vinayak was caused at his hand. Reliance is placed on the evidence of the defence witnesses who are D.W. 1 Baburao Patil and D.W. 2 Gunjappa Gadhi. D.W. 1 Baburao stated that the appellant had informed that there was a fight at the work site between the appellant and the deceased. At that time, according to D.W. 1 Baburao, the deceased Vinayak and the persons accompanying him came near the appellant and P.W. 10 Gunaji caught hold of the collar and dragged the appellant to the road. Thereafter, according to D.W. 1 Baburao, there was a fight and P.W. 10 Gunaji took out a knife and with intention to assault the appellant, gave a blow but the appellant evaded the blow and the knife, therefore, struck the deceased Vinayak on the chest. This witness has been cross-examined by the prosecution. According to me, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness as P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar in his cross-examination has admitted that he had gone to the house of D.W. 1 Baburao in order to bring water and while asking for water P.W. 9 Dnyneshwar had narrated the incident to D.W. 1 Baburao. Thereafter D.W. 1 Baburao had come running to the scene of occurrence. P.W. 10 Gunaji stated that D.W. 1 Baburao did not come to the scene of offence. However, in the later part of his cross-examination he admits that D.W. 1 Baburao had fainted but had not fainted on account of the beating given to Baburao but on seeing the blood coming out from the chest of deceased Vinayak. When P.W. 10 Gunaji stated that Baburao had not come to the scene of occurrence it is because P.W. 10 Gunaji speaks about presence of Baburao after the offence had been committed. Therefore, these are strong circumstances which compel me to believe that D.W. 1 Baburao, the maternal uncle of the appellant had seen the actual assault but has stepped into the witness box only to oblige his nephew, the appellant. D.W. 2 Gunjappa is the brother-in-law of D.W. 1 Baburao. He stated that D.W. 1 Baburao had gone out of the house to bring biscuits and because D.W. 1 Baburao had not returned, this witness also came outside and saw D.W. 1 Baburao returning. D.W. 2 Gunjappa is the brother-in-law of D.W. 1 Baburao. He stated that D.W. 1 Baburao had gone out of the house to bring biscuits and because D.W. 1 Baburao had not returned, this witness also came outside and saw D.W. 1 Baburao returning. Thereafter he heard some noise and on coming out he saw that a man had caught the appellant and while P.W. 10 Gunaji was trying to give a blow of something which was in his hand, the accused evaded the blow. Due to which the man who had caught the appellant fell down. According to this witness, P.W. 10 Gunaji took out the knife from the person who had fallen down and threw it in the compound of the house and ran away. D.W. 2 Gunajappa is another obliging witness, who has stepped into the witness box to oblige a relative. D.W. 1 Baburao makes no reference to the fact that he had gone out for purchasing biscuits. He only stated that D.W. 2 Gunjappa was in his house. Apart from it, the entire defence appears to be highly improbable. P.W. 8 Mahadev is a close relative of the deceased. It is hardly likely that he would allow the assailant, if the appellant is to be believed, to go scot-free and foist a false case on the appellant. None of the witness and the accused were on inimical terms. The quarrel that the deceased Vinayak had with the appellant had nothing to do with these witnesses. The appellant was their friend as also the deceased. There is, therefore no earthly reason why these witnesses would take the side of the deceased Vinayak and go and fight with the appellant. The quarrel was of such a trivial nature which was probably ignored by the witnesses and the deceased but not by the accused. 17. The trial Court has extended the benefit to the appellant and convicted him under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. A fervent plea has been made before me that the appellant has been in jail for the last three years and, in such circumstances, the appellant be released on the terms of imprisonment already undergone by him. It is true that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased, in the sense that this was not a premeditated attack. A fervent plea has been made before me that the appellant has been in jail for the last three years and, in such circumstances, the appellant be released on the terms of imprisonment already undergone by him. It is true that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased, in the sense that this was not a premeditated attack. All the same the appellant was armed with a knife which he was carrying in his waist. Over a trivial quarrel the appellant has gone and sought provocation and has stabbed the deceased Vinayak in the process. I do not think this is a case which calls for reduction of sentence. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the appellant on the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 18. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----