P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ANGOTHU Latchu, the appellant/ accused aggrieved by conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 326 ipc by the learned Principal Sessions judge, Nalgonda in Sessions Case no. 95 of 1997 had preferred the present criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is as follows: the deceased in this case is one Bheemla. He has two wives by name Mojali and Bichali. Accused is the brother of Bheemla. Bheemla, accused (Latchu) and Hemla are brothers. Among them, Hemla became man of unsound mind and leading a wayward life. Their ancestral property was to be divided among three brothers. The accused was intending to grab the share of Hemla, for which deceased Bheemla took up objection and that initiated differences between Bheemla and Latchu. At about 7 p. m. on 13-5-1995 Angothu shivali, W/o. Latchu. (accused) was quarreled with Mojali the elder wife of the deceased. Angothu Bichi and Angothu Ramji rushed to the spot and tried to separate the ladies and pacify the matter. In the meantime, the deceased Bheemla came there and intervened. The accused Latchu became annoyed and inflicted a knife injury on the left hand of the deceased Bheemla. Aforesaid bitchu and Ramji, who were initially shown as accused along with the present accused latchu, intervened and rescued Bheemla. Thereafter, Bheemla went to the house of dharavath Nanu their caste elder, who is also the father of one Panthu, M. P. T. C. Member, to report the matter. P. W. 7 Nanu advised Bheemla to report the matter to police. When Bheemla was returning to his house, on the way accused attacked Bheemla nearthorny bushes and inflicted knife injuries on right side of chest and neck and caused bleeding injuries. Bheemla was taken to kamala Nehru Hospital, Vijayapuri and while being treated there, he succumbed to the injuries on 24-5-1995. At about 9 p. m. on 13-5-1995 P. W. 1 angothu Hari, S/o. Bheemla lodged report with Alwal Police Station mentioning therein that on that evening at about 9 p. m. on 13-5-1995 when his mother Mojali-first wife of Bheemla was standing in front of their house, wife of accused by name Shivali came and quarrelled with his mother for no reason and on seeing this his father Bheemla intervened and tried to rescue Mojali and pacify the matter. In the meantime, the accused Latchu. In the meantime, the accused Latchu. Angothu Bitchu and Angothu ramji who were on inimical terms, assaulted bheemla and Latchu inflicted injuries on his father with knife on left hand, right side of the chest and neck while the remainingtwo caught hold of his father. Subsequently, all the 3 assailants escaped from the place. ( 3 ) BASING on the report given by P. W. 1 hari, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 13 b. Ramulu Naik registered a case under section 326 read with 34 IPC. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared scene of offence panchanama and seized blood-stained and controlled earth. He sent injured Bheemla to Kamala Nehru Hospital after recording his statement marked ex. P-8. He has disclosed in that statement that only Angothu Latchu-accused had inflicted injuries on his and the other two namely Angothu Bitchu and Ramji only intervened and tried to pacify them and save him from the clutches of accused Latchu. ( 4 ) ON the death of Bheemla on 24-5-1995, basing on the intimation from hospital, the case has been altered to section 302 IPC under Ex. P-7 memo. As there is no evidence against Bitchu and Ramji their names have been eliminated from the offence. Inquest was held over the dead body of Bheemla in the presence of mediators p. W. 12 and another, under Ex. P-5, panchanama and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P. W. 10 dr. B. Manjula conducted post-mortem and issued Ex. P-3 post-mortem Examination report. ( 5 ) ACCUSED Latchu was arrested on 18-6-1995 and on his alleged confessional statement marked Ex. P-2 said to have been made in the presence of P. W. 9 Jatavath peekla Naik and another, the knife alleged to have been used in the commission of offence marked M. O. 1 has been seized under ex. P-2 panchanama (admissible portion only marked ). After completion of investigation, the Inspector, P. W. 14 filed the charge-sheet. ( 6 ) THE matter was committed to the Court of Session, Nalgonda and the learned principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda examined P. Ws. 1 to 14 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and also M. O. 1. Learned Judge also examined D. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked exs. ( 6 ) THE matter was committed to the Court of Session, Nalgonda and the learned principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda examined P. Ws. 1 to 14 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-8 and also M. O. 1. Learned Judge also examined D. Ws. 1 and 2 and marked exs. D-1 to D-14 and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the accused cannot be found guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC, bur found him guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal. ( 7 ) SRI C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court to Ex. P-1 and the contents thereof and would submit that the version as given in Ex. P-1 is something different from what had been deposed by p. W. 1 before the Court. The counsel also would submit that P. W. 1 had given improved version before the Court. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the other persons who had been referred to in Ex. P-1 were not prosecuted at all and it throws some suspicion over the version of the prosecution. Learned counsel also would submit that there are several omissions in 161 Cr. P. C. statements of P. Ws. 4 and 5 and in the light of the same, the evidence may have to be viewed with suspicion. Learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of the doctor, p. W. 10 and would contend that he had not deposed relating to the nature of injuries whether grievous or simple and hence, it should be taken that all the injuries are of simple nature and even otherwise, conviction under Section 326 IPC cannot be relied on and on the basis of that, the same may fall under Section 324 IPC. Learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 and submitted that these injuries had not been explained by the prosecution and hence, benefit of doubt can be given. Learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 and submitted that these injuries had not been explained by the prosecution and hence, benefit of doubt can be given. ( 8 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public prosecutor had pointed out that though p. W. 10 had not specifically deposed to the effect that the injuries are either grievous or simple but as can be seen from the nature of injuries, the injuries are grievous in nature and hence, on that ground, the contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Learned Additional public Prosecutor also had taken this Court through the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 and would submit that this aspect also had been dealt with the learned Judge and findings had been recorded in detail and hence, the said findings may have to be confirmed. ( 9 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 10 ) EX. P-1 reads as under. Dated 13-5-1995 to the Sub Inspector of Police, alwal, Anumala Mandal. Sir, i, Angothu Hari, S/o. Bheemla, r/o. Rangundla appeal you that to-day i. e, 13-5-1995 night at about 7 hours while my mother Mutyali stood in front of our house at that time my Junior paternal uncle s wife niveli, W/o. Angothu Latchu abusing my mother and there was brawl. Meanwhile my father Angothu Bheemla S/o. Tikya interposed and asked them not to quarrel unnecessarily and trying to separate them. At that time my junior paternal uncle Latchu, s/o. Tikya came along with angothu Ramji, s/o. Namma and Angothu Bitchu, s/o. Namma by keeping old enmity in their minds Angothu Latchu stabbed my father on his right hand, below the right arm pit and the three were fled away. Therefore, take necessary action against them. Sd/- Angothu Hari, s/o. Bheemla no doubt submissions at length were made comparing the allegations made in Ex. P-1 to the evidence of P. W. 1, as such, before the court. P. W. 1 deposed that the accused is his junior paternal uncle and accused is the youngest brother of his father, who died about three years ten months back. The wife of the accused is Chivali. His mother is Mojali. There was quarrel going on in between the wife of the accused and his mother during light lighting time and his father tried to intervene and pacify. The wife of the accused is Chivali. His mother is Mojali. There was quarrel going on in between the wife of the accused and his mother during light lighting time and his father tried to intervene and pacify. In the meanwhile accused came with a small knife, stabbed on the left hand of Bheemla and ran away after stabbing. They went to the house of the elder, one Dharavath Nanu to inform the incident. When they were returning from his house after informing the incident, the accused came from the backside and stabbed on the right side under the arm and also on the backside neck portion. P. W. 1, his mother, bichali, Nanu, Ramavath Babu and Angothu sreenu witnessed the stabbing. He narrated the incident to a literate and he wrote it. He got the contents read over to him. He removed his father in an auto to the Haliya Police station and he presented a written complaint. Ex. P-1 is the complaint. This witness also deposed that his father died after twelve days of the incident. There were land disputes in between his father and the accused. This witness was cross-examined at length and several questions were put in relation to ex. P-1. He deposed that Angothu Ramji and bitchu were present at the time of quarrel and they did not catch hold of his father. He further deposed that he did not get it written in Ex. P-1 that Bitchu and Ramji caught hold the deceased. He adds that the total stabbing incident did not take place at one place. It is wrongly mentioned in Ex. P-1 that Angothu bitchu and Ramji caught hold of his father at the time of stabbing. They did not run away. P. Ws. 1 to 3 along with injured Bheemla went to the Police Station. Altogether five people went to the Police Station along with the injured. This witness also deposed that he did not state before the police as in Ex. D-9, which was marked as a contradiction, ( 11 ) P. W. 2 also had corroborated P. W. 1 that the accused came and stabbed her husband. This witness also was cross- examined and Ex. D-1, portion in 161 Cr. P. C. statement was marked by way of contradiction. P. Ws. 3 to 5 also had supported the version of the prosecution. No doubt certain contradictions like Exs. This witness also was cross- examined and Ex. D-1, portion in 161 Cr. P. C. statement was marked by way of contradiction. P. Ws. 3 to 5 also had supported the version of the prosecution. No doubt certain contradictions like Exs. D-3 and D-4 were marked. P. W. 6 simply deposed that on hearing some galata, he went outside the house and at that time, accused stabbed bheemla on the right side portion below the arm pit and also backside of the neck portion and run away. He saw the said stabbing and asked him why he stabbed him and why he was running away. P. W. 7 simply deposed that he went and saw the deceased and he heard that there was stabbing and there were injuries found on his body. P. Ws. 1 to 3 informed him that the accused stabbed. Bheem!a. P. W. 8 also deposed that he had seen the deceased with three injuries being removed in auto. P. W. 9 no doubt deposed about seizure of the knife, M. O. 1 and the admissible portion of the panchanama, ex. P-2, which also had been proved by examining P. W. 9. ( 12 ) SUBMISSIONS at length were made by the learned counsel for the appellant that all the details which had been deposed by P. W. 1 before the Court had not been stated in ex. P-1 and hence, the evidence of P. W. 1 is to be viewed with suspicion. ( 13 ) APART from this aspect of the matter, the counsel also had pointed out that there are material omissions in the evidence of p. Ws. 4 and 5. From the nature of evidence and the nature of witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that these minor contradictions would not shatter the very foundation of the prosecution case on the fateful day. The evidence is clear and consistent. ( 14 ) P. W. 10 is the doctor who had deposed about the external injuries as under: (1) 1" Lenear healed scar with Two suture marks over right side of neck. (2) 2" long healed scar with three suture marks seen over lateral aspect of middle of right side of chest. The scar is oblique over 8th Right Inter costal space in between the ribs. (3) 3" long healed scar with fine sutures seen over left forearm on ulnar aspect. (2) 2" long healed scar with three suture marks seen over lateral aspect of middle of right side of chest. The scar is oblique over 8th Right Inter costal space in between the ribs. (3) 3" long healed scar with fine sutures seen over left forearm on ulnar aspect. He also deposed about the internal injuries as under: rigor mortis was present in both upper and lower limbs. On cutting opening: neck is normal. There was complete collapse of right lung with Plural cavity filled with cream coloured bloodstained fluid about 700 ML. Mediastenal shift to left side seen. Heart is flabby and cream coloured. Left plural cavity and left lung are normal. On opening abdomen, stomach is normal. Liver is normal. Spleen is normal. Kidneys are normal. No collection was seen in the abdominal cavity. It is no doubt true that P. W. 10 did not specifically depose any injury to be grievous but however, she deposed that injury No. 2 can cause death in ordinary course of nature. ( 15 ) P. W. 11 was examined in relation to panchanama, Ex. P-4. P. W. 12 was examined in relation to the inquest report, Ex. P-5. P. W. 13, the Sub-Inspector of Police deposed about the details of investigation. Through him, the contradictions were proved by putting them in cross-examination. P. W. 14 is the inspector of Police, CID, who had deposed about verification of the investigation conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police and sending the dead body for post-mortem examination and also other details of investigation and after receipt of post-mortem certificate, he filed charge-sheet. The investigating Officers also were cross- examined at length. ( 16 ) D. W. 1 is the wife of tne accused who had deposed that accuseo is her husband and Bheemla is elder brother of the accused. Bheemla died four years ago. At the time of the incident, at dinner time, her children found fault by Mojali for allowing water to flow in front of her house and therefore, a quarrel took place between herself and Mojali and mojali dragged her by catching her hair and the deceased beat her with a pestle on her left temple region, stomach and right groin region. In the course of beating, she lost consciousness. At that time, her husband was doing the work of weighing groundnut at the house of Abbai Ramulu. In the course of beating, she lost consciousness. At that time, her husband was doing the work of weighing groundnut at the house of Abbai Ramulu. On the next day morning at 9 a. m. she regained conscious at government Hospital, Nagarjuna Sagar. This witness was cross-examined. ( 17 ) D. W. 2, the doctor was examined; who deposed that she had examined a lady by name Angothu Chivali and found the following injuries: (1) Lacerated injury over lower lateral aspect of left orbit arc shape 1 " x 1/8" superficial tenderness present. Indurations present over the left cheek, upto jaw. (2) Two stick markings verticle over left scapular region. (3) Contusion left grater trochan is complaining of bleeding per vegina and pain abdomen. P. V. S. just sanguilous discharge of LMP 5th day. Exs. D-12 is the attested Xerox copy of accident Register and Ex. D-13 is the Diet sheet and Clinic sheet. Ex. D-14 is the O. P. chit. The evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 had been adduced for the purpose of defending the accused on the ground that the version of the prosecution cannot be believed. There cannot be any doubt or controversy that the deceased died, no doubt, after few days of the occurrence. The consistent version of the prosecution is that the accused stabbed the deceased, commencing from Ex. P-1; the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6 is available. No doubt, Exs. D-1 to D-11, the contradictions were marked and proved through the investigating Officer and also the evidence of d. Ws. 1 and 2 and Exs. D-12 to 14 had been relied upon. M. O. 1 is a knife which had been seized. ( 18 ) THE Investigating Officers, P. Ws. 13 and 14 deposed in detail about the details of investigation. P. W. 9 is the panch for confession and seizure. P. W. 10, the doctor and P. W. 11, the panch for scene of offence and seizure of bloodstains and P. W. 12, panch for inquest also had been examined. It is no doubt true that P. W. 7 is a circumstantial witness. But the evidence of other witnesses, p. Ws. 1 to 6 and 8 also is available on record. In view of the consistent version commencing from Ex. It is no doubt true that P. W. 7 is a circumstantial witness. But the evidence of other witnesses, p. Ws. 1 to 6 and 8 also is available on record. In view of the consistent version commencing from Ex. P-1 coupled with the direct evidence available on record, well supported by the medical evidence of P. W. 10, the learned judge was justified in not relying upon the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to disturb the said findings recorded by the learned Judge. ( 19 ) THE fact that the deceased died subsequent there of and all the other circumstances in fact had been taken into consideration and a clear finding had been recorded that the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 or 304 IPC, but ultimately was found guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC. However, taking into consideration that the family of the appellant/accused-Angothu Lachu, s/o. Teekya, consisting of children and wife, is dependent on the accused and also the nature of the injuries as deposed by P. W. 10, this Court is of considered opinion that the conviction under Section 326 I PC is to be confirmed. However, the sentence of rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years is reduced to a period of 2 years and payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 326 IPC is hereby confirmed. It is needless to say that the accused is entitled to the benefit of Section 428 of Cr. P. C. i. e. , set off the period of detention during trial or the imprisonment which he had already undergone, if any. Except this modification, in all other aspects, the findings are hereby confirmed. ( 20 ) THE Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the above modification of the sentence.