M.Thanikachalam, J.: The accused unable to resist the charge against him, successfully, under Sec.302, I.P.C. in S.C.No.171 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli suffered a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and the same is sought to be assailed in this appeal. 2. The accused appellant was brought before the trial Court, to face the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. on the ground that on 22.1.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., due to previous enmity, with an intention to commit murder, he assaulted one Guruvammal, by cutting her indiscriminately by Aruval and the said Guruvammal, succumbed to the injuries, on 23.1.1993, at about 8.00 a.m. and in this view, he should be dealt with accordingly. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, satisfying himself that a charge could be framed and proceeded further, did so, but the accused refused to plead guilty. 4. The prosecution marched in all 17 witnesses armed with 22 exhibits and 8 material objects, in support of their case to satisfy the conscience of the Court, in order to inflict appropriate punishment. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, upon consideration of the above materials, according to law, came to the conclusion satisfying himself, that Guruvammal met her premature end only due to the cut injuries, caused by the deceased, which he did with an intention to commit murder. In this view, he slapped the conviction and sentenced him, to undergo life imprisonment under Sec.302, I.P.C., which is under challenge before us. 6. The facts in brief to decide the case: (a) The accused is the husband of Tmt.Easwari, P.W.5. Thiru Jayaraj (P.W.1), Thiru Periyasamy (P.W.2), Tmt.Nesam (P.W.3), the accused and the deceased are all labourers working in a quarry, and they are residing at Thenkasi-Keezhavalibanpothai. (b) Tmt.Guruvammal is the second wife of Sivanukumar and it seems, she is not living with her husband. Tmt.Guruvammal and Easwari (P.W.5) being the neighbours, Guruvammal questioned the conduct of Easwari and in turn Easwari also questioned the conduct of Guruvammal. Because of the accusation, they have developed some kind of animosity. On 22.1.1993, at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.5 questioned the conduct of the deceased and the same was counter attacked by hurling accusation against the husband of P.W.5, viz., the accused. The accused who heard this accusation against his wife got furious and assaulted Guruvammal, by M.O.I, Aruval. Because of the accusation, they have developed some kind of animosity. On 22.1.1993, at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.5 questioned the conduct of the deceased and the same was counter attacked by hurling accusation against the husband of P.W.5, viz., the accused. The accused who heard this accusation against his wife got furious and assaulted Guruvammal, by M.O.I, Aruval. By the act of the accused, Guruvammal sustained number of cut injuries, which was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. After assaulting, the accused left the place, with weapon. (c) Easwari and one Mary (P.W.4) after the incident, took the injured to the hospital as per the direction of P.W.2, where she was attended by doctor, P.W.7, who had noticed as many as 12 injuries, over the body of Guruvammal, which are incorporated in Ex.P-2. Despite the treatment given by P.W.7 and others, she succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., which was informed to the police under Ex.P-3. (d) The accused who assaulted Guruvammal realising his folly, surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 on the same day at about 7.15 p.m. The confession made by the accused, was reduced into writing under Ex.P-6. P.W.9 prepared a report, Ex.P-7 and handed over the accused, along with the confession (Ex.P-6), his report (Ex.P-7) and M.O.I to the police, through P.W.10. his menial. (e) On receipt of Exs.P-6 and P-7, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.99/93, under Sec.307, I.P.C., for which Ex.P-13, F.I.R. was submitted to the Court concerned. P.W.16 also arrested the accused, recovered M.O.I and informed the matter to the Inspector of Police, for investigation. (f) P.W. 17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., commenced her investigation. The injured, Guruvammal, when succumbed to the injuries, and the same was informed to the police, resulting alteration of the case from 307, I.P.C. to 302, I.P.C. under Ex.P-20. P.W. 17, rushed to the scene of crime at about 9.30 a.m., prepared Ex.P-9 in the presence of the witnesses and also sketch Ex.P-21. From the scene of crime, P.W.17 recovered, M.Os.4 and 5 in the presence of P.W.10 and another, under the cover of Ex.P-10, Mahazar. Thereafter, she examined the witnesses, recorded the statements. In order to ascertain the real cause for the death, the Investigating Officer took steps, for conducting autopsy. From the scene of crime, P.W.17 recovered, M.Os.4 and 5 in the presence of P.W.10 and another, under the cover of Ex.P-10, Mahazar. Thereafter, she examined the witnesses, recorded the statements. In order to ascertain the real cause for the death, the Investigating Officer took steps, for conducting autopsy. (g) On receipt of requisition, under Ex.P-4 from the investigating officer, P.W. 8 conducted autopsy, over the body of Guruvammal on 23.1.1993 at about 3.00 p.m., which revealed the following external injuries. (1) shaped cut injury with clear margin midline of forehead 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. (2) Semicircular incised injury with clear margin over the right parietal region 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. (3) Horizontal incised wound with clear margin over the Rt. Parietal region of 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. (4) Lacerated injury over the back of neck - horizontally V shaped extending from - 2 cm below the lobule of Rt. ear 15 cm x 14 cm x 3 cm bone deep exposing the vertebra crossing the midline. (5) Lacerated injury behind the Rt. ear of 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep with fracture site of L shaped of 1 cm x 2 cm length. (6) Lacerated horizontal injury occipital region of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. (7) Incised wound over the lateral aspect of Rt. arm above the elbow of 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. (8) Incised wound over the lateral aspect of rt. forearm 1 cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep just below the rt. elbow joint. (9) Incised wound lateral aspect of Lt. Elbow joint of 5 cm x 2 cm exposing the joint. (10) Lacerated wound below Lt. Wrist 4 cm x 3 cm bone deep vertical of the palm. (11) Cut injury Rt. ring finger hanging loose only by the skin at the level of distal phalanx. (12) Incised wound over the middle of Rt. middle finger 1 cm x 1/2 cm exposing the tendon. The doctor probing the external as well as internal injuries, came to the conclusion that the injuries 4, 5 and 6 are proved to be fatal. ring finger hanging loose only by the skin at the level of distal phalanx. (12) Incised wound over the middle of Rt. middle finger 1 cm x 1/2 cm exposing the tendon. The doctor probing the external as well as internal injuries, came to the conclusion that the injuries 4, 5 and 6 are proved to be fatal. Considering the over all effect of all the injuries, the doctor opined, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained by him, which are incorporated in Ex.P-5. (h) P.W.I 7 in continuation of the investigation, recorded the statements of other witnesses also and caused the material objects to be sent, for chemical analysis through Court. The conclusion of the investigation, brought to surface that the accused alone had committed the murder of Guruvammal, due to previous enmity and in this view, a final report was filed seeking appropriate punishment, leading to trial, ending in conviction as aforementioned, which is under challenge. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr.R.Sankarasubbu and the learned Government Advocate, (Criminal Side). 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits, that there is no proper complaint in this case moving the wheel of the investigation and in this view, the entire edifice of the prosecution case must fail. It is the further contention of the learned counsel, that the statement given by the accused could not be the basis for investigation, in the absence of complaint by third parties. He further pointed out, that P. Ws. 1 and 2 could not be the eye witnesses for the incident and therefore, believing their testimony, sustaining the conviction, would amount to injustice. As final submission, the learned counsel would contend, that if any case is made out against the accused, certainly it would not attract Sec.302, I.P.C. and if at all, it would attract only 304(I), I.P.C. and in this view, he prayed for reduction in sentence. 9. Guruvammal, who sustained number of cut injuries, incised wounds, as depicted in Exs.P-1 and P-5, succumbed to the same on 23.1.1993 at about 8.00 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution, that the accused had caused those injuries by deploying M.O.I, weapon that too, with an intention to commit murder and in this view, Sec.302 of I.P.C. should visit upon him. The defence is one of total denial. The defence is one of total denial. Before going into the veracity of evidence available on record, to decide, who did this murder, now let us see what is the cause for the death of Guruvammal, and the effect of injuries sustained by her. 10. P.W.7, Dr.Velayutham has testified, that Guruvammal was brought to hospital on 22.1.1993 at about 7.15 p.m. and he was informed, that Guruvammal was attacked by a known person, on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.7 noticed, as many as 12 injuries, which are incorporated in Ex.P-1. In Ex.P-1 itself, the scene of crime is mentioned as, just before the house of Easwari, P.W.5. 11. P.W.5, Easwari, the wife of the accused also admits, that there was an incident, then she along with her husband and P.W.4, went to police station, in order to prefer complaint. But, it is not the case of P.W.5, that she preferred a complaint or her husband reported the incident to the police. It is in evidence, from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2 that P.Ws.4 and 5 alone have taken the deceased, to the hospital, which is in conformity with the evidence, given by P.W.7, who has recorded the presence of Easwari. Hence, we conclude, that the injured was brought to the hospital, only by P.W.5, the wife of the accused and immediately thereafter, she died. 12. During the course of investigation, at the request of the investigating officer, postmortem was conducted by P.W.8, as seen from Ex.P-5. Injuries No.4, 5 and 6 proved to be fatal, as per the evidence given by P.W.8. There were number of cut and incised wounds, and some of the injuries had caused damage to the internal organs, thereby causing haemorrhage. The doctor considering the over all effect of the injuries, opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, which were caused by the injuries sustained by her. When P.W.8 has given the opinion about the cause of death, as well as the nature of injuries, they are not challenged. The doctor considering the over all effect of the injuries, opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, which were caused by the injuries sustained by her. When P.W.8 has given the opinion about the cause of death, as well as the nature of injuries, they are not challenged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we conclude, that Guruvammal died due to the multiple injuries, sustained by her on 22.1.1993 at about 7.00 p.m., which caused haemorrhage and shock, thereby taking away her life, on the same day at about 8.00 p.m. For the injuries noted in Exs.P-1 and P-5, if it is proved, the accused is the cause, then his act would certainly, attract the penal provisions. 13. The contention of the learned counsel, that there was no motive is not acceptable to us, because of the inspiring evidence available on record. The deceased Guruvammal and Easwari were frequently quarreling with each other, which resulted in a complaint, as spoken by P.W.11 on 17.10.1992. P.W.11 has deposed, that on the compliant given by Guruvammal, enquiry was conducted and the accused namely, Easwari, since tendered apology, no further action was taken. P.Ws.1 and 2 have also spoken, about the petty quarrels between Easwari and Guruvammal, prior to the incident dated 22.1.1993. We find no reason to ignore the acceptable evidence, which is corroborated by P.W.1. In this view, we conclude that there was long standing strained relationship between Guruvammal and Easwari, which may be the cause for the incident on 22.1.1993. 14. The occurrence took place on 22.1.1993 at about 7.00 p.m. Therefore, there is every possibility of identifying the known person, even in the absence of light. P.W. 12 has been examined, to prove that in this area, electrical lights were burning from 6.00 p.m. till the next day 6.00 a.m. The suggestion thrown to P.W. 12 that he is giving false evidence, to support the case of the prosecution, appears to be an imagination and in this view, we conclude that there was sufficient light, from the street light also, to identify the accused as well as, to witness the commission of crime. It is not the case of the defence that the alleged eye witnesses are strangers and there is no possibility for them, to identify the accused. It is not the case of the defence that the alleged eye witnesses are strangers and there is no possibility for them, to identify the accused. As aforementioned, there is long standing strained relationship between the parties, thereby indicating that they are known to each other, and therefore, if the witnesses have identified the accused and depicted his act, in assaulting the deceased Guruvammal, we would not find any reason, to ignore the same. 15. As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1. some incident is admitted, since it is suggested, that at the time of the occurrence, the husband of Guruvammal alone cut her. It is in evidence, that Guruvammal is not living with her husband and therefore, accepting the suggestion is out of place. The snap answers elicited from P.W.1, that she was not present, when the injured was taken in an auto, would not nullify the effective evidence, given by her, during the examination in chief. Probably, after the incident, when P.Ws.4 and 5 took the injured to the hospital, she might have left the place, and in this view alone, she would have stated that she was not present at that time. But the same would not mean, that she had not witnessed the incident. It is also suggested to P.W.1 that while the accused ran away from the scene of crime, he threw the Aruval nearby a pit. If this is correct, then we could say, that the accused has not only admitted his presence, but also admitted his involvement also, to certain extent. P.W.1 narrating the wordy altercation between Easwari and Guruvammal regarding their conduct, as well as the conduct of the husband, would state: 16. It is the further case of P.W.1, that at that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 were also present witnessing the incident and attempted to prevent. He has further deposed that the accused had warned them, not to approach him, if approached, they would also be taken into task. The above evidence given by P.W.1, connecting the accused, is fully corroborated by P.Ws.2 and 3 identifying M.O.1 also. The subsequent events viz., taking the injured to the hospital, is proved by the oral evidence of P.W.4, Mary supported by oral evidence of P.W.5, the wife of the accused. As we have already adverted to above, the doctors have immediately attended the injured, but unable to save her life. The subsequent events viz., taking the injured to the hospital, is proved by the oral evidence of P.W.4, Mary supported by oral evidence of P.W.5, the wife of the accused. As we have already adverted to above, the doctors have immediately attended the injured, but unable to save her life. While preparing the accident register also, the fact of attacking Guruvammal, by a known person is also noted in the accident register. In the light of the above evidence, we have no slightest doubt, about the genuineness of the prosecution case and in fact, accepting the same, as did by the trial Court, we conclude that by the act of the accused alone, Guruvammal met her end, for which the accused should be held responsible. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there was no complaint from third party does not deserve acceptance. The Village Administrative Officer, P.W.9 has no axe to grind against the accused. He would state as P.W.9 that on 22.1.1993 at about 7.15 p.m., the accused came to his office, with blood stained dothi as well as Aruval and informed that he had committed the murder of Guruvammal, wife of Sivanukumar. P.W.9, testified further that the statement given by the accused was reduced into writing as Ex.P-6, which was handed over to the police, accompanied with Ex.P-7 and the weapon, which is confirmed by P.W. 10. 18. P.W.16 arrested the accused, registered a case forthwith, originally under Sec.307, I.P.C., since at that time, it was not known to the police, whether Guruvammal was alive or not. After the death intimation, the case was altered to Sec.302, I.P.C. From P.W.16, P.W.17 took the case for investigation and he has categorically spoken about the investigation step by step, including the examination of the witnesses, then and there, as well as the recovery of the material objects, connecting the accused. As seen from the sketch Ex.P-21, the incident had taken place, just in front of the house of the accused, though it is not specifically stated in the final report. 19. The material objects were also sent for chemical examination, which revealed the existence of the human blood, including the knife. But, the authorities concerned were unable to group the blood, because of the fact, grouping test was inconclusive. 19. The material objects were also sent for chemical examination, which revealed the existence of the human blood, including the knife. But, the authorities concerned were unable to group the blood, because of the fact, grouping test was inconclusive. As pointed out, the weapon was identified by the eye witnesses and therefore, the absence of any blood group of the deceased, in the weapon, would not negate the case of the prosecution. The trial Court considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, from all possible and probable angle, had reached a just conclusion in convicting the accused, which cannot be found fault. 20. By way of final submission, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence slapped upon the accused under Sec.302, I.P.C. is not warranted, under the facts and circumstances of the case, even accepting the story of the prosecution as such. We are unable to repel the above contention in toto, since enough materials are available in support of the above contention. The deceased went to the house of the accused, and picked up quarrel, questioning the conduct of the wife of the accused. According to P.W.I, in his own words, On hearing this accusation against the wife, naturally any husband would have acted violently also. In the same manner P.W.I aggrieved and agitated by the conduct of the deceased, in imputing allegations against his wife, went inside, took out a knife, then assaulted Guruvammal indiscriminately, causing number of injuries. If really the deceased had not uttered the above words, against the wife of the accused, this incident would not have taken place. In our considered opinion, the accused had acted without any premeditation, in a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion. Therefore, the act of the accused should come within Exception IV of Sec.300, I.P.C., thereby attracting the penal provisions of Sec.304, I.P.C. 21. The accused had inflicted as many as 12 injuries out of which, four injuries are proved to be fatal in nature. The words uttered and the number of injuries caused by the accused would indicate, that he had committed an act of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, but the act by which the death is caused is done with an intention of causing death. The words uttered and the number of injuries caused by the accused would indicate, that he had committed an act of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, but the act by which the death is caused is done with an intention of causing death. In this view, the act of the accused attracts 304 (I), I.P.C. and not 302, I.P.C, warranting minimum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, as rightly canvassed and persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to convict the accused under Sec.304(I), I.P.C. modifying the conviction and sentence slapped by the trial Court under Sec.302, I.P.C. 22. The accused is in custody (as reported) from the date of conviction of the judgment i.e., from 23.6.1995. He had already undergone more than 8 years of imprisonment. The period already undergone by the accused, as a convict, would meet the ends of justice for the offence under Sec.304(I), I.P.C. and we feel, the period of conviction, need not be extended further, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case. In this view, the accused is found guilty and convicted under Sec.304(I), I.P.C, imposing the imprisonment to the period already undergone, directing the release of the accused forthwith, since his further custody is not necessary, if his detention is not required, in any other case, legally. The appeal is allowed to the above said extent, modifying the conviction and sentence.