P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri I. V. N. Raju, Counsel representing the appellant-AI and Sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE appellant-AI-Yerramsetti Gopi krishna, preferred the present appeal as against the judgment dated 09-04-1998 made in Sessions Case No. 395 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, west Godavari, Eluru, convicting the appellant-AI alone, for the offence under section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. ( 3 ) THE learned Judge, no doubt, after recording the reasons in detail, found A-2 and A-3 not guilty, and recorded acquittal, and the said judgment so far as A-2 and A-3 is concerned, had attained finality, since no appeal had been preferred as against the order of acquittal. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant-P. W. 1 is a resident of eluru Town, doing business in waste papers. His sister-Rama was given in marriage to a-1 about five years prior to the date of the incident. A-l discarded his sister-Rama, and a-1 was demanding P. W. 1 and his parents to give another sister of P. W. 1, by name kalavathi alias Kala-P. W. 3, in marriage to him. When they did not agree for the same, a-1 bore grudge against the P. W. 1. The further case of the prosecution is that on 22-12-1989 at about 6. 30 p. m. A-1 to A-3 armed with knives, with a common object of killing ramarao-P. W. 1, entered into his scrap material godown and attacked him. A-1 stabbed him over his right side of the chest with a knife, and A-2 and A-3 held him firmly without allowing him to move, stabbed him with knives over the upper and lower limbs disparately? P. W. 1 raised hue and cry. Thinking that he died, the accused left the scene of offence. The sisters of P. W. 1, and his brother-in-law witnessed the incident, and that he was shifted to the Eluru II Town police Station by his brother-in-law. There, p. W. 1 gave a statement to the police. After registering the case, the police sent the injured to the Hospital. Thinking that he died, the accused left the scene of offence. The sisters of P. W. 1, and his brother-in-law witnessed the incident, and that he was shifted to the Eluru II Town police Station by his brother-in-law. There, p. W. 1 gave a statement to the police. After registering the case, the police sent the injured to the Hospital. The Doctors, who attended the injured, opined that the injury on the right side of the chest of the P. W. 1 was grievous in nature, while the other injuries are simple in nature. ( 5 ) THE learned II Additional Judicial magistrate of First Class, Eluru, had taken the case as P. R. C. No. 43 of 1995, and committed the same to the Court of Session, which in turn made over the same to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Eluru, who tried the case, recorded the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 20, and marked Exs. P-1 to P-28 and M. Os 1 to 4. On behalf of the defence d. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. D-1 to D-6 were marked, and recorded an acquittal as far as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, and convicted the appellant-A-1 herein under section 307 I PC. Hence the appeal. ( 6 ) SRI I. V. N. Raju, the learned Counsel representing the appellant-A-l would submit that there appears to be some enemity between P. W. 1 and the appellant-A-1, in view of the differences between the appellant-A-1 and his wife. The learned Counsel also would contend that a case of kidnapping also had been filed against the appellant-A-1, which ended in acquittal. The learned Counsel also would further contend that the evidence of P. Ws. 1,2,8 and 13, if carefully scrutinized, there are several inconsistencies, and hence, their evidence cannot be believed. The learned Counsel also would submit that the learned Judge having recorded an acquittal against A-2 and A-3, believed the self-same version of the witnesses, as far as A-1 is concerned, and convicted him forthe offence under Section 307 IPC, which cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the other evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also pointed out that there is delay of about 15 hours, and the Court received the first Information Report on 23-12-1989 at 11. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the other evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also pointed out that there is delay of about 15 hours, and the Court received the first Information Report on 23-12-1989 at 11. 00 a. m. , when the offence is said to have been at6. 30p. m. on 22-12-1998. The learned counsel also would point out that the medical evidence is contrary to the evidence, which had been deposed by P. Ws. 1, 2, 8 and 13. The learned Counsel also had pointed out the inconsistent versions relating to the stabbing as deposed by P. Ws 1,2,8 and also p. W. 13, and would contend that there are no corresponding injuries as reflected in the medical evidence, and hence, benefit of doubt to be given to the appellant-A1. The learned counsel also while further elaborating submissions would contend that the specific plea of alibi had been taken. But, the learned judge disbelieved the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 on unsustainable grounds. The learned counsel would submit that though the evidence of D. W. 1 in relation to the records, which had been produced, is clear, the evidence of D. W. 2 is also available, and hence, in the light of the evidence of D. W. 2, it was clearly established that up to 6. 00 p. m. on the fateful day, the appellant-A-1 was on duty, and hence, there is no possibility of the appellant-A-1 being present at the scene of offence by 6. 30 p. m. , in view of the distance between Eluru and Vijayawada. While concluding his submissions, the learned counsel would submit that at any rate, in the light of the facts and circumstances, this would not fall under Section 307 IPC. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the alternative, and at the best, it may fall under Section 325 IPC instead of Sec. 307 ipc. While concluding his submissions, the learned counsel would submit that at any rate, in the light of the facts and circumstances, this would not fall under Section 307 IPC. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the alternative, and at the best, it may fall under Section 325 IPC instead of Sec. 307 ipc. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would contend that the very version of the prosecution is that the appellant-A1, who is none other than the brother-in-law of P. W. 1 bore grudge, since p. W. 1 and his family members were not willing to give P. W. S-Kalavathi again in marriage to A-1, as the appellant-A-1 was not looking after well the other wife Rama, who was given in marriage to the appellant- a-1 and hence, there is a clear motive on the part of the appellant-A-1 to perpetrate the present crime. The learned Additional Public prosecutor also would submit that the plea of alibi is definitely an after thought to get over the problem and that since the reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned judge, while appreciating the evidence of d. Ws. 1 and 2, and the reasons recorded by the learned Judge are cogent and convincing, and in view of the fact that the plea of alibi itself is a weak type of defence, unless it is clearly established by the defence that it was just mere a total impossibility of the accused at the scene of offence, at the relevant point of time, in view of the fact, that he was present elsewhere, unless clear evidence is available on record, the plea of alibi definitely cannot be sustained. The learned Additional public Prosecutor also would submit that in view of the clear evidence of P. Ws 1,2,8 and 13, the incident as such cannot be disbelieved. The learned Additional public Prosecutor also would submit that in view of the clear evidence of P. Ws 1,2,8 and 13, the incident as such cannot be disbelieved. No doubt, an acquittal was recorded as far as a-2 and A-3 is concerned, because they are new persons to the witnesses, who accompanied the appellant-A-1 as per the version of the prosecution, and apart from this aspect of the matter, their names were not shown in the First Information Report, and the other reasons also had been recorded, and hence, as far as the acquittal recorded as against A-2 and A-3 would not inure to the benefit of A-1, to extend the same benefit in the case of the appellant-A-1 also. ( 8 ) THE factual matrix, in brief, already had been narrated supra. P. W. 1-defacto-complainant had deposed in detail what had happened on the fateful day and why the differences arose between him and his brother-in-law-appellant-A-1. It is no doubt true that in Ex. P. 1-statement, the names of a-2 and A-3 had not been specified, but specifically it was stated that when he was wearing only a cut drawer after removing the clothes, his brother-in-law-Yerramsetti Gopi krishna and two others trespassed forcibly into the shop, by abusing him in filthy language, stating that P. W. 1 had not celebrated his marriage with his sister kalavathi, and caught hold of his hair, by uttering that he will not allow him to live and pushed him in room and stabbed him on his right chest with a knife holding in his hand and he fell down. The other details also had been narrated. Thus, the earliest version in ex. P. 1-Statement is well inconsistent with the version of P. W. 1 as deposed by him before the Court. It is not doubt true that p. W. 1 also deposed that apart from A-1, A-2 and A-3 also had participated, but benefit of doubt was given to A-2 and A-3. P. W. 1 specifically deposed that A-1 stated to him that he did not give his sister Kalavathi in marriage to him and hence, he will not allow him to live, and so saying A-1 held his tuft, dragged him into the shop room from the varandah and A-1 also stated that he should die, so saying A-1 stabbed him with knife on his right chest and pushed him down. No doubt, he also deposed that A-2 and A-3 also stabbed him on his hands and legs. This witness was cross-examined at length. No doubt, this witness admitted that in relating to his other sister Laxmi, her husband had discarded her. On several other aspects relating to the family, this witness had been cross-examined at length. Though this witness was cross-examined at length, nothing serious had been elicited to discredit his testimony, as far as the happening of the incident on the fateful day is concerned. Here itself, it is pertinent to note that A-2 and A-3 who are said to have accompanied the appellant-A-1 may be the new comers, but as far as A-1 is concerned, he is a person well known to the family of P. W. 1,. being his brother-in-law. ( 9 ) P. W. 2-BROTHER-IN-LAW of P. W. 1 had deposed in detail as to what had happened on the fateful day. This evidence of P. W. 2 well corroborates with the evidence of P. W. 1. This witness also deposed that he brought the rickshaw and took P. W. I to the Eluru ii Town Police station and the police asked him to take the injured to the Government hospital and the police accompanied the injured to the hospital, and police took the statement of P. W. 1. This witness was also cross-examined. The questions, which were put to this witness, are more or less general in nature, and nothing serious had been elicited to discredit this witness. ( 10 ) P. W. S-KALAVATHI, who is the sister of p. W. 1, is yet another crucial witness and she is the apple of discord between the accused and P. W. 1. She had deposed about the incident proper and also what had prompted a-1 to perpetrate this crime as against her brother P. W. 1. She also deposed that A-1 threatened them that he would kill her brother, if they give evidence against him in the kidnap case, and due to fear, they did not give evidence as against A-1 and they compromised the matter, and as such A-1 got acquittal in the kidnapping case. This witness further deposed that on 22-12-1998, she, along with her sisters Laxmi, Rama, and p. W. 1 and P. W. 2, was working in the shop of p. W. 1, at about 6. This witness further deposed that on 22-12-1998, she, along with her sisters Laxmi, Rama, and p. W. 1 and P. W. 2, was working in the shop of p. W. 1, at about 6. 00 p. m and she went to bazaar to purchase vegetables, and while she was returning to P. W. 1 s shop at about 6. 30 p. m. , when she was at a distance of about 10 yards, from the shop, A-1 to A-3 were running away with blood stains towards power Pet Railway Station, Eluru town and a-2 and A-3 were having knives in their hands She also deposed that she knows the accused since the date of kidnapping. This witness also was cross-examined at length and the suggestions put to this witness had been denied. ( 11 ) THE evidence of P. W. 4 is to the limited extent that in the month of December, 1989 he brought one injured from the area near pannindu Pampulu center (12 taps center) to eluru II Town Police Station, and the relative of the injured accompanied the injured in his rickshaw. ( 12 ) P. WS. 5 and 6 no doubt were declared hostile. P. W. 7 was examined up to some extent, and at the instance of the prosecution, this witness was also declared hostile. ( 13 ) P. W. 8 is yet another witness, who is the legally wedded wife of Al had deposed about all the details relating to her family and the motive for the crime, and no doubt, this witness had deposed all the details and further deposed about the threatening P. W. 1 saying that you had not given your sister in marriage, and hence, you should die, so saying A-1 stabbed with M. O. 2-knife on the right chest of P. W. 1 twice or thrice but she cannot say exactly, how many times A-1 stabbed P. W. 1 on his chest, and then, P. W. 1 fell down. It is no doubt true that the version of this witness- p. W. 8 is not clear and a big exaggerated version, and much comment was made on the credibility of this witness. On that ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant-A-1 would contend that the medical evidence is contrary to what had been deposed by P. W. 8. It is no doubt true that the version of this witness- p. W. 8 is not clear and a big exaggerated version, and much comment was made on the credibility of this witness. On that ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant-A-1 would contend that the medical evidence is contrary to what had been deposed by P. W. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the whole evidence of this witness, it is clear that in substance, the evidence of P. W. 8 is in corroboration to the evidence of P. Ws 1 and 3 as well in relation to the happening of the incident on the fateful day. ( 14 ) P. W. 13 is yet another witness, who had deposed about the happening of the incident on the fateful day. This witness also specifically deposed about A-1 stabbing p. W. 1 with M. 02 knife on the right side of the chest saying that P. W. 1 had not given your sister Kalavathi to him in marriage and hence, p. W. 1 should die today. This evidence of pw. 13 is clear and categorical terms and would corroborate with the other evidence available on record, the other eye witnesses to the incident, and much comment had been made about these witnesses on the ground that these are close and relative witnesses to p. W. 1, and hence, their evidence cannot be believed. This Court is not inclined to accept with the said contention. At the best, the evidence of such relative witnesses may have to be carefully scrutinized, but the same cannot be totally discarded on that ground only. ( 15 ) THE other witness-P. W. 9 deposed to the effect that P. W. 3 came to herand informed that P. W. 1 was stabbed in the shop and this witness along with her husband went to the government Head Quarters Hospital to see her son. ( 16 ) P. W. 10 deposed about the seizure of m. O. 2-knife by the head constable and also the seizure of the blood smeared earth and the control earth M. Os. 3 and 4 under the mediator s report-Ex. P-5 and he is the scribe of Ex. P-5. This witness also deposed about the seizure of M. 01 under the cover of mediator s report marked as Ex. P-6 and he is the scribe of Ex. P-6. 3 and 4 under the mediator s report-Ex. P-5 and he is the scribe of Ex. P-5. This witness also deposed about the seizure of M. 01 under the cover of mediator s report marked as Ex. P-6 and he is the scribe of Ex. P-6. ( 17 ) P. W. 11 is the photographer deposed about Exs. P-7 to P-10-photographs taken by him and Exs. P-11 to P-14 are the negatives. ( 18 ) P. W. 12-DOCTOR examined P. W. 1, and found the following injuries. (1) A stabbed wound of 2" x 1" from 2nd right costo chondrial region down wards and inwards 6" deep. Probe going 6" into the tissue and air is coming out with inspiration and expiration. Bleeding present. (2) A cut injury of 2" x V2" x skin deep on the left first web space, fresh, bleeding present. (3) A cut injury of 1 " x " into muscle deep over dorsal aspect of middle 1/3rd of right forearm. (4) A cut injury of 4" x " muscle deep across the wrist to ulna side of right forearm. (5) A cut injury of 2" x " x skin deep over anterior aspect of right forearm lower 1/3rd. (6) A stab injury of " x "x 3" deep into the right knee joint. (7) A stab injury of " and " over medial aspect of left knee. No doubt, this witness deposed that injury No. 1 could have been Caused, when victim falls on a pointed object. ( 19 ) ON the strength of the nature of injuries and also the direct evidence available on record, the inconsistent versions of the witnesses had been pointed out by the learned counsel representing the appellant-A-1. ( 20 ) P. W. 14 Head Constable deposed about the details of the investigation. P. W. 15 - inspector of Police previously worked as sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru 11 Town Police station. He deposed that on 22-12-1989 in his absence, H. C. 747 registered this case as a Crime No. 413 of 1989 under section 307, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. This witness also deposed that the further investigation done by his successor. ( 21 ) P. W. 16-SUB-INSPECTOR of Police, who proceeded with the further investigation and concluded the investigation, filed the charge sheet. This witness also deposed that the further investigation done by his successor. ( 21 ) P. W. 16-SUB-INSPECTOR of Police, who proceeded with the further investigation and concluded the investigation, filed the charge sheet. ( 22 ) P. W. 17 is yet another doctor, who worked as Cardio Thoracic from 1985 to 1993, in Government General Hospital, guntur. He had examined P. W. 2 and found the following injuries: (1) A stab wound of two inches x 1 inch in the right second inter costal space. The injury was 6 inches deep. Air was coming out while breathing through the wound. Bleeding was present. (2) A cut injury of 2 inches x inch on the left first web space. (3) A cut injury of 1 inch x inch over dorsal aspect of middle 1/3rd of right forearm. (4) A cut injury of 4 inch x inch, muscle deep over the wrist of right forearm. (5) A cut injury 2 inches x inch x skin deep over the anterior aspect of the right forearm, lower 1/3rd. (6) A stab injury inch x inch, deep, into the right knee joint. (7) A stab injury of inch x over the medial aspect of left knee. Certain suggestions were put to this witness also. ( 23 ) P. W. 18-CIVIL Assistant Surgeon, government Head Quarters Hospital, Chirala, also had examined P. W. 2 and found the following injuries. (1) A stab wound of 2 inch x 1 inch present on the coasto chondrial region and chondrial junction. I did not prove the depth of the injury no. 4 as it is in the chest region. The specialist doctors will attend to it. (2) A cut injury of size 2 inches x inch present on the left first web space. (3) A cut injury of size 1 inch x inch over dorsal aspect of the middle 1/3rd right forearm (4) A cut injury of 4 inches x inch, muscle deep over the right forearm. (5) A cut injury of 2 inch x inch skin deep on the ventral (anterior) aspect of the right forearm, lower 1/3rd. (6) A stab injury of inch x inch, skin deep into writ knee joint. (7) A stab injury of inch x over the medial aspect of left knee. ( 24 ) P. W. 19-ASSISTANT Radiologist had deposed about Ex. P. 26-X-ray film and ex. P. 27-reporton Ex. (6) A stab injury of inch x inch, skin deep into writ knee joint. (7) A stab injury of inch x over the medial aspect of left knee. ( 24 ) P. W. 19-ASSISTANT Radiologist had deposed about Ex. P. 26-X-ray film and ex. P. 27-reporton Ex. P-26-x-ray film relating to P. W. 1 and he had also deposed about exs. P-28 and 24. ( 25 ) P. W. 20 is the Head Constable, to whom P. W. 1 complained orally, and the same was reduced into writing in the form of ex. P-1-statement, and he wrote Ex. P-1- statement on the dictation of P. W. 1 and the contents of Ex. P-1 were read over to P. W. 1. This witness also deposed about the details of investigation up to some extent, which no doubt had been continued by his superior officers as already referred to supra. This witness was cross-examined at length relating to what had been deposed by the witnesses in the 161 Cr. P. C. statements. In cross- examination, the contradictory versions made by P. W. 8 had been elicited in detail. ( 26 ) D. W. 1, no doubt, deposed that he has been working as Senior Assistant in South central Railways, Vijayawada. He deposed that he had brought the attendance register- ex. D-3, for the periods from 14-09-1989 to 13-04-1990, maintained by S. S. G. (Station superintendent Gazetted), South Central railways, Vijayawada. Ex. D-4 is the relevant entry for the period from 14-12-1989 to 13-04-1990 relating to the appellant-A-1. The duty hours for oil men are from 9. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 p. m. with one hour break for lunch between 1. 00 p. m. to 2. 00 p. m. As can be seen from the attendance register-Ex. D-3, a-1 was working as oil man at the relevant point of time. The duty of an oil man is to collect kerosene oil from the stores clerk and distribute the same to the points men, gate men and the passenger train guards. This witness no doubt deposed in detail the working hours and the duties of such oilmen. But in the cross-examination, he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the attendance of Gopi Krishna-appellant herein on 22-12-1989, since he joined in the office in the month of April, 1996. This witness no doubt deposed in detail the working hours and the duties of such oilmen. But in the cross-examination, he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the attendance of Gopi Krishna-appellant herein on 22-12-1989, since he joined in the office in the month of April, 1996. ( 27 ) D. W. 2, no doubt, deposed specifically that on 22-12-1989 he supplied ten liters of kerosene oil to the appellant-A-1. He deposed that the duty hours would be from 9. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 p. m. , with one hour break between 1. 00 p. m. to 2. 00 p. m. , and no doubt, this witness specifically deposed that normally, the permission to leave the office cannot be granted by him, and these oil men should report him at 6. 00 p. m. in the office. ( 28 ) ON the strength of this evidence of d. W. 2, submissions at length were made to the effect that inasmuch as there is clear evidence that up to 6. 00 p. m. on the fateful day the appellant-A-l was present at the office, it would be impossible, and the presence of the appellant-A-1 at 6. 30 p. m. , at eluru at the scene of offence, definitely, cannot be believed. Reasons in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge while appreciating the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2, as to why the plea of alibi taken by the appellant-A-1, cannot be believed and cannot be sustained. ( 29 ) ON overall appreciation of the evidence on record, as far as the participation of the appellant-A-1 in the commission of the offence, on the fateful day, the incident had been well deposed by P. Ws. 1,2,3,8 and 13. It is no doubt true that there are certain exaggerated versions in the evidence of p. W. 8, and all the corresponding injuries as reflected in the medical evidence had not been deposed by these witnesses. But, it is pertinent to note that the evidence of the witnesses is to the effect that not only A-1 stabbed but A-2 and A-3 also participated. But, it is pertinent to note that the evidence of the witnesses is to the effect that not only A-1 stabbed but A-2 and A-3 also participated. No doubt, on the ground of identification and on anotherground since theyare new comers, acquittal had been recorded as far as A-2 and A-3 is concerned, and in view of the clear evidence of the eye witnesses to the incident, also in the light of the reasons well explained by the learned Judge disbelieving the plea of alibi, especially the evidence of D. W. 2, taking the character of the D. W. 2 also into consideration, and also the fact that on the very next day, A-1 went on leave, moved application to surrender before the Court, wherein this aspect was not mentioned, all these aspects should go to show the plea of alibi is only an after thought. At any rate, it is pertinent to note that a railway employee should have been careful and cautious, and when he had been on duty, at the earliest point of time he should have mentioned the same while moving an application before the appropriate Court. These reasons recorded by the learned Judge definitely cannot be said to be unsustainable reasons. Hence, the said reasons and the findings recorded in this regard are hereby confirmed. ( 30 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant in alternative would submit that in the light of the nature of injuries, and also in the light of the fact that there were certain disputes between P. W. 1 and the family members on one hand, and the appellant-A-1 on the other, at the best, on the fateful day, the intention of al was definitely not to do away with the life of P. W. 1, but attacked P. W. 1, and in the course of the same, the injury was caused. In the light of the evidence of P. W. 1 and the other witnesses and the corresponding injury at the best, the offence committed may fall under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code but not definitely under Section 307 IPC. In the light of the evidence of P. W. 1 and the other witnesses and the corresponding injury at the best, the offence committed may fall under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code but not definitely under Section 307 IPC. The relationship between the parties even prior there to appears to have been well strained in view of the episode of Kalavathi, the appellant-A-1 insisting and demanding that she should also be given in marriage to him and P. W. 1 and the family members of P. W. 1 refused to comply with the said demand. The motive for the commission of the offence appears to be the same. An acquittal had been recorded in relation to A-2 and A-3, and taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses P. Ws 1,2, 3 and 13 and also the specific utterances made by the appellant- a-1 at the time of the commission of the offence, definitely, it cannot be said that he had no intention to do away with the life of p. W. 1. In fact, the witnesses specifically deposed that the accused left the scene of offence after being satisfied that P. W. 1 was no more. This would definitely go to show that the intention of the appellant-A-1 on the fateful day was only to do away with the life of P. W. 1 and the reason also had been well explained by the prosecution. ( 31 ) HENCE, in view of thefindings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard convicting the appellant-A-1 for the offence under section 307 IPC cannot be found fault in any way, especially, in the light of the clear utterances made by the appellant-A-1 during the perpetration of the offence as against p. W. 1 as deposed by all the witnesses consistently. ( 32 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, west Godavari, Eluru, on 09-04-1998 in sessions Case No. 395 of 1995 against the appellant-A-1 for the offence under section 307 IPC is hereby confirmed. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances and also the fact that the appellant-A-1 is an employee and his family members are depending on him, the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 307 ipc by the learned Judge is hereby modified and reduced to a period of fouryears rigorous imprisonment from eight years. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances and also the fact that the appellant-A-1 is an employee and his family members are depending on him, the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 307 ipc by the learned Judge is hereby modified and reduced to a period of fouryears rigorous imprisonment from eight years. But however, the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months is hereby confirmed. Subject to the above modification, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The accused is entitled to set off the period of imprisonment, if any already undergone, and the accused shall serve the rest of the sentence.