This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 3rd June, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Manipur East. The learned Sessions Judge by the Judgment under appeal convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20, 000/- for causing death of his uncle Sarat Singh by stabbing on his abdomen on 11.12.1990 at around 7 P.M. 2. In pursuance of an ejahar filed by Shri Konjengbam Priyokumar Singh, the police registered as F.I.R. No.588(12)90, took up investigation and in due course submitted charge-sheet against the accused Shri Chingangbam Imo @ Dinesh Singh. 3. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial after the accused denied the charge framed against him under Section 302 I.P.C. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The defence examined none. The defence case as it appears from the trend in cross-examination is of complete denial. 4. I have heard Mr.Ph.Dolen, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.S.Reisang, learned Public Prosecutor, Manipur. 5. The evidence of P.W.4 Dr.A.Momochand Singh shows that the following injuries were inflicted on the person of the deceased Sarat Singh:- “External injury: - One stab wound on left inguinal region 8.3 cm. from mid line, 2 cm x 0.9 cm, elliptical in shape, margins were regular and inverted except on supero-lateral corner red. The wound was 8.5 cm. infero-medial to left anterior superior iliac spine. The margin at supero lateral corner of the wound was irregular. There was beveling on supero lateral side. The covergent track was formed involving skin, muscles, femoral sheat and femoral artery (left). The wound was directed backward, downward and medially. ……………… (d) MUSCLES: bonds and joints - Left femoral artery was completely cut corresponding with the external injury described above. The margins were regular (clean).” In the opinion of the doctor (P.W.4), the death occurred due to hemorrhage resulting from the above stab wound. The injuries were homicidal caused in between 12 to 18 hours before the postmortem examination. Ext.P-1 is the postmortem report which has been duly tendered in evidence by P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.4 read with the postmortem report as well as the inquest report (Ext.P/8) establish that Sarat Singh was killed on 11.12.1990 as alleged by the prosecution. 6. All the prosecution witnesses are near relations of the accused as well as the deceased. Ext.P-1 is the postmortem report which has been duly tendered in evidence by P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.4 read with the postmortem report as well as the inquest report (Ext.P/8) establish that Sarat Singh was killed on 11.12.1990 as alleged by the prosecution. 6. All the prosecution witnesses are near relations of the accused as well as the deceased. None of them has made any incriminating statement against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the ground that there are sufficient circumstantial evidence available on record to conclude that the accused had stabbed his maternal uncle Sarat Singh. But the circumstances available have neither been highlighted nor discussed. 7. Situated thus, we would like to examine land re-appreciate the evidence on record to determine as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the accused/appellant. 8. P.W.1 Shri Konjengbam Priyokumar Singh stated that the accused is the son of his elder sister. On 10.11.1990 at about 7 P.M. he went to the house of accused where he found his elder brother Sarat Singh lying dead with bleeding injuries on his abdomen. He further stated that he does not know who had injured him. He also saw the accused standing on his verandah wearing a “Haophi”. The accused asked him not to come closure to him. The witness has not been cross-examined by the defence. The prosecution also did not declare him hostile. The only thing we find from him is that the accused was standing near the injured in his house wearing a “Haophi” and asked the witness, his uncle, not to come closer to him. 9. P.W.2 Smt.Seityabati Devi is the mother of the accused. The deceased was her younger brother. The deceased came to their house 12 years ago. There was verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased. She heard this from inside the house where she was making arrangement for “cooking”. On hearing altercation, she came out and saw the deceased Sarat Singh with injuries on his abdomen. Sarat fell down on the ground. She noticed blood oozing out from his abdomen. Her brother died on way to hospital. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and cross-examined. The witness denied the suggestion that she had seen the accused stabbing the deceased Sarat Singh with a knife. Sarat fell down on the ground. She noticed blood oozing out from his abdomen. Her brother died on way to hospital. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and cross-examined. The witness denied the suggestion that she had seen the accused stabbing the deceased Sarat Singh with a knife. The contradiction sought to be brought on record has not been properly proved with reference to the statements made before the I.O. However, from the evidence of this witness it stands proved that she had heard the accused and deceased exchanging hot words and that she came out from the room and saw bleeding injuries on the abdomen of his brother Sarat. 10. P.W.3 Shri Ch.Gulap Singh is the father of the accused. He stated that the incident took place 12 years back in the month of December, but he does not know who had stabbed Sarat. He stated that Sarat was found dead in his courtyard. This witness was also declared hostile. The suggestion given to him has been denied. The prosecution failed to prove the contradiction in its' proper perspective. 11. From the evidence of P.W.5 Shri Hidangmayum Brajamani Sharma, the Investigating Officer, we find that he had investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. He tendered in evidence the F.I.R. Ext-P/2, the charge sheet Ext.-P/3 Ext.P/4 is the seizure list by which the knife was seized and Ext.P/5 is the seizure list of the cloth of the accused. Ext.P/6 is the sketch map and Ext.P/8 is the inquest report. The important piece of documentary evidence adduced by this witness is Ext.P/10, the report submitted by the Assistant Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India. The report shows that knife was stained with human blood. The Serologist has not been examined by the prosecution and no opportunity was given to the defence to cross-examine. 12. The evidence of the witnesses reproduced above reveal the following circumstances:- (i) The deceased Sarat Singh came to the house of the accused on the date of occurrence. (ii) There was verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased on the verandah of the house of the accused. (iii) From P.W.1, we find that he saw deceased with bleeding injuries on his abdomen and the accused standing nearby asked him not to come closer to him. (ii) There was verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased on the verandah of the house of the accused. (iii) From P.W.1, we find that he saw deceased with bleeding injuries on his abdomen and the accused standing nearby asked him not to come closer to him. (iv) From P.W.2 we find that she was busy in preparation for cooking inside the house and hearing altercation between the accused and the deceased, she came out and saw deceased Sarat with injuries on his abdomen. (v) The evidence further reveals that the knife seized by the Investigating Officer was stained with human blood. (vi) There is no evidence on record to show that there was any other person present in the verandah except the deceased and the accused when altercation took place between them. 13. The above circumstances emerging out from the evidence of the witnesses, in our considered opinion, lead to the inevitable conclusion that it is the appellant who had assaulted Sarat Singh and caused his death by stabbing him on his abdomen. The chain of circumstances, highlighted above, are consistent with the guilt of the accused. 14. Mr.Ph.Dolen, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to examine the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in proper perspective. According to Mr.Dolen, the evidence were not specifically put to the accused to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances, if any, available against him. The learned Sessions Judge indulged in asking direction question to the accused to elicit as to whether he had committed the crime or not. 15. We have perused the statements recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We have not been able to find out as to how the accused has been prejudiced though the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been exactly in accordance with the provisions of law. Omission to accord fair hearing is contrary to due process of law. But where such omission are not of much significance without having any bearing in the decision making process, such omission shall not vitiate the trial unless a case of prejudice is made out. In the instant case we are unable to discern as to how the case has been prejudiced. Moreover, the accused did not adduce any evidence in support of his case, if any, other than pure and simple denial. In the instant case we are unable to discern as to how the case has been prejudiced. Moreover, the accused did not adduce any evidence in support of his case, if any, other than pure and simple denial. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in Mathura Yadav@ Mathura Mahato & others -Versus- State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2707 in order to show that it would be unsafe to place reliance on circumstances rendered doubtful because of discrepant evidence. We have also considered the other judgments in Zahiura Habibulla H.Sheikh & another - Versus- State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 ; Pratap Singh and another -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2006 SC 514 and in Sohan and another -Versus- State of Haryana & another, reported in AIR 2001 SC 1380 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the circumstances available in the instant case, we have least doubt in our mind about the complicity of the accused. 16. It would appear from the chain of circumstances that the occurrence took place after exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased. The reason for and the nature of altercation are not available in evidence. But the fact remains that the accused had assaulted his uncle Sarat during the course of altercation. The accused had dealt with only one knife blow on the abdomen of Sarat. It was obviously had in a heat of passion generated by verbal altercation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had premeditated the action and in pursuance thereof liquidated Sarat. The element of intention to kill, in our considered opinion, was not there. Since the knife blow was dealt with in a heat of passion, it cannot also be said that he had intended to cause such bodily injury as it likely to cause death. Therefore, we convert the conviction from Section 302 to 304 Pt.II I.P.C. Accordingly, we convict the appellant under Section 304 Pt.II I.P.C. and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. The period of sentence already undergone shall be set-off. 17. The appeal is thus disposed of with above modification of the judgment under appeal.