Judgment :- The accused in Sessions Case No.85 of 1997 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal is the appellant in the above appeal. He was charged for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short "I.P.C.") on the allegation that he killed his father Pitchai Pillai on 21.04.1997 at about 2.00 p.m., by stabbing him with a knife on his chest. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.27 and M.Os.1 to 8 were marked. On the other hand, on the side of the accused, neither any one was examined nor any document was marked in support of his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and taking note of the fact that the deceased father was aged about 65 years and also of the fact that the accused has to maintain three children and nobody to look after them, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Questioning the same, the accused has preferred the above appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry for respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is briefly stated hereunder: P.Ws.1 and 2 are the daughter and son of the deceased Pitchai Pillai. The accused is one of the sons of the deceased. P.W.2 and the accused are brothers and sons of deceased Pitchai Pillai. The accused, who was living separately used to pick up quarrel with his father Pitchai Pillai and his mother under the influence of liquor. It is the further case of the prosecution that the marriage of one Arumugam, another son of Pitchai Pillai took place on 20.04.1997 and he married to a Christian bride. The accused was not invited for the said marriage. While so, on 21.04.1997, at about 2.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased in a drunken mood, called his father and his brothers to come out of the house. The deceased came out of the house, followed by P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused was not invited for the said marriage. While so, on 21.04.1997, at about 2.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased in a drunken mood, called his father and his brothers to come out of the house. The deceased came out of the house, followed by P.Ws.1 and 2. At that time, immediately, the accused uttered certain remarks against the family of Pitchai Pillai and later took a knife and stabbed Pitchai Pillai on his left chest, resulting him bleeding injuries. P.W.2 and Masi @ Masilamani, took the injured to the General Hospital, Karaikal. P.W.5 - the Casualty Medical Officer, on examination, found Pitchai Pillai brought dead. P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karaikal received the death intimation - Ex.P.5 from P.W.5 about the death of Pitchai Pillai. P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint - Ex.P.1 regarding death of his father. P.W.14 registered a case in Crime No.50 of 1997 under Section 302 of I.P.C. Ex.P.25 is the printed First Information Report. P.W.15 - Inspector of Police, who received the message about the registration of case in Crime No.50 of 1997 under Section 302 of I.P.C. on 21.04.1997, took up further investigation. He went to General Hospital, Karaikal and found the body of the deceased kept in the mortuary. He also found that the accused was admitted in the Emergency Ward of General Hospital at Karaikal. P.W.15 seized the blood stained shirt, dhoti and baniyan of the accused under Magazar in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P.26 is the seizure magazar. On 22.04.1997, at about 7.45 a.m., he went to General Hospital, Karaikal along with panchayatars and conducted inquest between 8.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. Ex.P.4 is the inquest report. Exs.P.16 and 17 are the photos and negatives of the deceased Pitchai Pillai. On requisition from P.W.15, R.M.O., Karaikal conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Pitchai Pillai. P.W.7 has been examined as Post mortem Doctor. He gave his opinion that the death has caused due to cordiogenic shock, as a result of injury sustained. Ex.P.7 is the chemical examination report and Ex.P.8 is the post mortem certificate. On 23.04.1997, at about 1.40 p.m., P.W.15 secured the accused in front of General Hospital, Karaikal and interrogated, arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of P.W.13 one Selvaraj. Ex.P.7 is the chemical examination report and Ex.P.8 is the post mortem certificate. On 23.04.1997, at about 1.40 p.m., P.W.15 secured the accused in front of General Hospital, Karaikal and interrogated, arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of P.W.13 one Selvaraj. Ex.P.23 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused. On identification by the accused, the knife - M.O.4 was recovered and knife cover as M.O.8. P.W.15 also recovered the sample blood of the accused for investigation purpose. M.O.2 is the sample blood of the deceased. P.W.15, after showing M.O.4, requested P.W.7 to offer his opinion about the injuries under the said weapon. P.W.7 has also secured opinion from the Scientific Officer and Chemical Examiner. After completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid a charge sheet against the accused on 22.10.1997 under Section 302 of I.P.C. As stated earlier, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years. 4. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge is right in convicting the accused / appellant under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and imposing a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment? 5. It is seen that P.W.1 daughter and P.W.2 son of the deceased though made a statement before the Judicial Magistrate, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikal, but at the time of trial, they retracted from their statement, accordingly they were treated as hostile witnesses. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted portion of their evidence in support of the prosecution case. As rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the brother of P.Ws.1 and 2, namely, Armuguam married to a Christian bride and for the said marriage the accused was not invited. It is further seen that the accused is residing in his own house in the same street, Indira Nagar with his wife and children. Since he was not invited for the marriage of his brother and his brother married to a Christian bride, according to the prosecution, he quarreled with his brothers and father. It is further seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on the fateful day, the accused under the influence of intoxication, came to their house and picked up quarrel with them. It is further seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on the fateful day, the accused under the influence of intoxication, came to their house and picked up quarrel with them. It is further seen that, after quarrelling with his brothers, the accused went to his house and took up a knife and while returning to his father's house, on seeing his father, he stabbed him with the said knife in his chest. As rightly observed, though P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile, their evidence is acceptable to some extent and it is clear that the accused was not in cordial terms with the deceased Pitchai Pillai because he was not invited for the marriage of his brother Arumugam, which took place a day prior to the incident, which resulted in a wordy quarrel and causing stab injury to Pitchai Pillai, as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly right in holding that motive aspect as suggested by the prosecution has been proved beyond doubt. I have already referred to the fact that the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 were recorded by P.W.12 - Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code. Their evidence were recorded as Exs.P.21 and P.22 respectively. 6. It is further seen that immediately after the occurrence, Masi @ Masilamani and P.W.2, who took the victim to the General Hospital, Karaikal for treatment. P.W.5, who was the Casualty Medical Officer, on examination found the victim brought dead. P.W.15, who took up further investigation went to the General Hospital, Karaikal and found the accused admitted in the hospital for the injuries found on him. He seized the blood stained shirt, dhoti and banian under a magazar Ex.P.26. M.Os.5 to 7 are the blood stained clothes of the deceased seized under magazar Ex.P.26. On 23.04.1997, at about 1.40 p.m., P.W.5 arrested the accused near the Government Hospital, Karaikal and recorded confession statement at about 3.30 p.m., in the presence of P.W.13. Ex.P.23 is the admissible portion of the confession statement. Based on his confession statement, P.W.15 seized knife - M.O.4, knife cover - M.O.8. It is further seen that on the request of P.W.15, M.O.4 - knife was sent to post mortem Doctor - P.W.7 to find out whether the said weapon could have been used for causing fatal injury to Pitchai Pillai. Based on his confession statement, P.W.15 seized knife - M.O.4, knife cover - M.O.8. It is further seen that on the request of P.W.15, M.O.4 - knife was sent to post mortem Doctor - P.W.7 to find out whether the said weapon could have been used for causing fatal injury to Pitchai Pillai. P.W.7 examined M.O.4 and offered his opinion - Ex.P.10, stating that M.O.4 could have been used to cause the injury found on his post mortem certificate - Ex.P.8. So, it is proved that M.O.4 could have been used to cause the fatal injury found in the post mortem report Ex.P.8. It is further seen that Ex.P.6 is the blood report of the accused and the same was explained by P.W.6. It is further seen that the origin of the blood group of the accused is AB Rh+. The origin of the blood group of the deceased is AB. It is further seen from the biological report i.e., Ex.P.20 that blood stained clothes of the accused contained the blood group of origin AB. From the report of Ex.P.20, it is the accused, was the person who caused fatal injury on Pitchai Pillai. As already discussed, apart from the admissible portion of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is also relevant to note the earliest statement of P.W.2. While admitting his father Pitchai Pillai in the hospital, P.W.2 informed the Duty Doctor that due to assault by his son, he sustained injuries. All the above materials clearly show that the prosecution has proved that it was the accused who had caused the injury on the fatal part of the deceased resulting to the death. I am in agreement with the said conclusion. 7. I have already referred to the fact that even according to the prosecution, the accused also sustained injury and he was admitted in the General Hospital, Karaikal for treatment. After investigation, P.W.15 arrested the accused and the accused made a confession statement, which has been marked as Ex.P.23. I have also perused his confession statement Ex.P.23 and as rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the other materials, the accused had no intention to assault his father and caused fatal injury. After investigation, P.W.15 arrested the accused and the accused made a confession statement, which has been marked as Ex.P.23. I have also perused his confession statement Ex.P.23 and as rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the other materials, the accused had no intention to assault his father and caused fatal injury. After quarrel with his brothers, when the accused brought the weapon to assault his brothers, on seeing his father and in view of the agitated mind, he caused inflicted injury on the fatal part of his father. As rightly observed that, he had no intention to kill his father. However, the accused would aware that such injury might cause fatal injury. In such a circumstance, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, namely that though the charge levelled against the accused for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is not proved, it would make out a case for punishment under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. It is seen from the proceedings of the Court below that the said aspect has been admitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Coming to the sentence awarded to the accused, it is seen from the statement of the accused that he has to maintain three children and according to him there is nobody to look after them. Taking note of the said aspect and of the fact that the accused caused inflicted injury on the fatal part of the deceased father, being aged about 65 years at the relevant time, the learned Additional Sessions Judge taking a lenient view, imposed a sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, which is also quite reasonable and acceptable. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in the appeal; consequently, the same is dismissed.