JUDGMENT: Kumar, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences under Secs.450 and 304(1), I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and ten years respectively. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed before this Court. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: "(a) The deceased Suresh was living in Subramania Udayar Street, Telugupalayam along with his wife P.W. 1 Jothi. P.W.6 Jayanthi is the sister of the deceased. She was residing in Chokkampudur separately, (b) The appellant, Kumar was facing a theft case in Crime No. 157 of 1993 on the file of B-2 Coimbatore Police Station. Since he was absconding, non-bailable warrant was issued. In execution of the non-bailable warrant, the appellant Kumar was arrested on 2.6.1997 by Head Constable, P.W. 12 at the Ukkadam bus stand. P.W. 12 was able to arrest the appellant in the above case only on the basis of the information given by the deceased Suresh. After the appellant came out on bail in the above case, on coming to know that he was arrested on the information given by the deceased, the appellant got angry towards him. (c) On 26.7.1987, at about 8.30 p.m., he along with the second accused Govindan came to the house of the deceased. On noticing the deceased inside the house, the appellant (A-1) caught hold of his shirt and shouted at him that he was the person, who gave the information about his whereabouts to the police and so, he came for taking his life. So saying, the appellant took out M.O.1 knife from his waist and stabbed on the shoulder and the right hip thrice. When the deceased Suresh got up and tried to run away from the scene, Govindan (A-2), who was standing near the entrance, pushed him aside. Thereafter, both the appellant and Govindan (A-2) ran away from the scene. (d) This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 Jothi, the wife of P.W.2 Suresh, who was residing nearby and P.W.6 Jayanthi. On noticing the injuries on the body, P.W. 1 and others took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore. At about 10.15 a.m., P.W.3 Natarajan admitted him and found three stab injuries on his body. Then, P.W.3 sent intimation Ex.P-2 to the police. He issued accident register Ex.P-3. On noticing the injuries on the body, P.W. 1 and others took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore. At about 10.15 a.m., P.W.3 Natarajan admitted him and found three stab injuries on his body. Then, P.W.3 sent intimation Ex.P-2 to the police. He issued accident register Ex.P-3. (e) At about 11 p.m., P.W. 14, the Head Constable attached to B-10 Police Station came to the hospital and recorded a statement Ex.P-19 from the deceased. Thereafter, the case was registered for the offences under Secs.452 and 324, I.P.C. P.W. 14 after registering the case, handed over the investigation to P.W. 15, Sub-Inspector of Police. (f) P.W. 15 came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P-21 statement from the deceased. Then, he recovered the blood stained clothes from the deceased. On 2.8.1997, he received an intimation that the deceased died through Ex.P-4 sent by P.W.4. P.W.1 6, the Inspector of Police altered the offence into one under Sec. 302,I.P.C. and took up further investigation. He conducted inquest. (g) In the meantime, both the accused surrendered before the Court. The weapon was recovered and confession of the appellant (A-1) was obtained. The body was sent for postmortem. (h) P.W.15 Doctor Natarajan attached to the Government Hospital conducted the post-mortem and found three injuries on the body and one other injury, which was due to the operation. He issued Ex.P-6, post-mortem certificate. (i) P.W.16. after investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offences under Secs.302 and 449 read with 34,I.P.C. (j) After trial, it was concluded that A-1 was guilty for the offences under Secs.450 and 304(1), I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and ten years respectively. This conviction and sentence is challenged before this Court in this appeal. 3. Mr.G. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend by taking me through the entire evidence that the motive aspect has not been established, though there are eye witnesses and P.W.5 Doctor’s evidence would show that the deceased died not due to the injuries but due to the complications out of the operation, which was not conducted properly. Mr.G. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend by taking me through the entire evidence that the motive aspect has not been established, though there are eye witnesses and P.W.5 Doctor’s evidence would show that the deceased died not due to the injuries but due to the complications out of the operation, which was not conducted properly. Ultimtately, he would submit that the appellant is deserved for sympathy in view of the fact that he is in jail for about three years and also he has passed his examination in M.A. I year and also joined Yoga, Meditation course and he obtained merit certificates from the authorities concerned and therefore, this Court may sympathetically consider and reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 4. Heard Mr.E. Raja, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on these aspects. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submission and also gone through the records. 6. There are three eye witnessess P.W.1. Jothi, is the wife, P.W.6 is the sister and P.W.2 is residing nearby. All the three witnesses would consistently state that the. appellant came inside the house and shouted at the deceased and attacked him with the knife M.O.1. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that immediately after the attack, the victim deceased was taken to the hospital without wasting any time in order to save the life of the deceased. Ex.P-2 is the intimation sent by the Doctor P.W.3 which would indicate that the deceased was brought by his wife P.W.1. Though the names of P.W.2 and P.W.6 are not mentioned in Ex.P-19 as eye witnesses, the deceased gave a statement to P.W. 14, Head Constable. In his statement to P.W.14 he mentioned that P.W.1 was the eye witness, when the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, out of the three eye witnesses, the evidence of P.W.1, the wife, would assume significance. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 both in chief and cross, there is nothing to indicate that P.W.1 speaks falsehood against the appellant. 8. It is contended that the motive aspect has not been established. It is settled law that when there are eye witnesses, the failure on the part of the prosecution with regard to motive aspect would pale into insignificance, especially when the eye witnesses are held to be trustworthy witnesses. 8. It is contended that the motive aspect has not been established. It is settled law that when there are eye witnesses, the failure on the part of the prosecution with regard to motive aspect would pale into insignificance, especially when the eye witnesses are held to be trustworthy witnesses. But in this case, the reliance can be placed not only on P.W.1 but also there is a corroboration with reference to the motive aspect. 9. It is the statement of the eye witnesses that when the accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house for the purpose of attacking the deceased, the appellant (A-1) shouted at him saying that he was the person, who gave information about his whereabouts to the police, who arrested him in a “theft” case. This aspect of the evidence has been spoken to by P.W.12 also. P.W.12 would specifically state that the appellant was arrested in execution of the non-bailable warrant in a theft case at Ukkadam bus stand only on the basis of the information given by the deceased. Therefore, in this case, the motive aspect also has been established. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the operation was not conducted properly. But unfortunately, no questions have been put to the Doctor P.W.4, who conducted the operation. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W5 would clearly reveal that the injuries inflicted on the vital parts of the body are sufficient to cause death. It is true that the deceased did not the on the spot and he died only after nine days. But, that may not be a ground to hold that the injuries inflicted by the appellant did not result in the death, especially, when P.W.5 says that these injuries are sufficient to cause death. Under those circumstances, this Court is constrained to reject the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the death was due to the operation, which was not properly conducted. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and consequently, the conviction is liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. 12. Under those circumstances, this Court is constrained to reject the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the death was due to the operation, which was not properly conducted. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and consequently, the conviction is liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. 12. In regard to sentence, it is strenuously submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has to be shown sympathy in view of the fact that he has joined the Manonmanium Sundaranar University and he has passed I year M.A. and if he comes out from the jail through reduction of sentence, he will be able to complete the M.A. degree course and continue to study Yoga and Meditation courses. 13. As a matter of fact, when the bail application was filed before this Court, this Court appreciated the endeavour of the appellant to join M.A. and to take training in Yoga and Meditation classes. While dismissing the bail application, this Court would observe as follows: “In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that a best environment for continuing his studies is only in jail in which he is confined, under conviction. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.” This observation would apply to the present stage also. 14. While considering the reduction of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Sec.450 and ten years under Sec. 304(1), I.P.C. It is stated that he has already finished M.A. I year and he has to write for examination M.A. II Year and he has also joined some Yoga and Meditation classes. Therefore, he must be allowed to continue his studies in the jail itself. 15. To continue the classes and finish the education, certainly it will take some years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence from ten years to seven years. Accordingly, the sentence alone is modified. In other respects, the appeal is dismissed. 16. The appellant is advised, at least in the future, to turn a new leaf of the life. After undergoing imprisonment and after coming out from the jail, let him show the society that he has become a good citizen.