Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The appellant is the sole accused who was tried in S.C. 481 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. By the Judgment dated 15.02.2007 he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased by name Loganathan. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and the resident of Thadampettai colony. The deceased was his second son. The deceased was the mason by profession under whom the accused Balamurugan was working as a menial. The accused belonged to the same locality. It is alleged that the deceased had to pay a sum of Rs.50/-to the accused representing his arrears in wages. On 09.07.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. when the deceased was proceeding to his work, he was waylaid by the accused near the house of one Ramalingam and the accused picked up quarrel with him demanding the payment of Rs.50/- being arrears of his salary. On witnessing the quarrel, P.Ws.1 to 5 separated them. In regard to the nonpayment of the said amount the accused, went to his house came back with a knife, stabbed the deceased on his left chest. P.W.1 took his injured son (since deceased) to a nearby hospital at Annmalai Nagar with the assistance of P.W.2 in an auto-rickshaw. P.Ws.3 and 4 were also present at the scene of occurrence. The deceased died even while he was taken to the hospital. P.W.1, thereafter gave the complaint, Ex.P.1 to P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police, Orathur Police Station who in turn registered the same in Cr.No. 82 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 307 and 302 of I.P.C. He prepared printed F.I.R., Ex.P.10 and sent the original to the Judicial Magistrate concerned through Head Constable (HC 661) and copies to his higher officials by post. He submitted the case records to P.W.12, Circle Inspector of Police, attached to Sethiathoppu Circle for further investigation. 3. He submitted the case records to P.W.12, Circle Inspector of Police, attached to Sethiathoppu Circle for further investigation. 3. P.W.12 who took up further investigation on 09.07.2006 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.2, drew rough sketch, Ex.P.11 in the presence of witnesses P.W.6 and one Saravanan and at about 12.00 noon, he recovered blood stained towel, M.O.2; blood stained earth, M.O.6; ordinary earth, M.O.7 under the cover of the mahazar, Ex.P.3 in the presence of the very same attesting witnesses. He examined, P.Ws.1 to P.W.5 and some others and recorded their statements. In continuation of his investigation, P.W.12 at about 2.30 p.m. held inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatars between 14.30 hours and 19.00 hours prepared inquest report, Ex.P.12. Thereafter, he gave a letter requesting the Doctor for conducting postmortem through the Head Constable, P.W.10. 4. The Doctor, P.W.8 attached to Government Hospital at Chidambaram on the basis of the Letter Ex.P.10 given by P.W.12 and upon identification by the Head Constable, P.W.10 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and during postmortem, he found the following features:- External Injuries:- 1. A stab wound of 3 x 2 c.m. X 11 c.m. X 3" below the left nipple. On gentle probing of the wound the depth was about 11 c.m. downwards backwards and outwards. 2. A stab wound on the back on the lateral aspect of chest of 3 x 2 x 11 c.m. Opening of abdomen:- Chest symmetrical, clear cut fracture of 6th rib on the left side on the mid clavicular line. On gentle probing the wound there was one stab wound on the left lung with 3 x 2 c.m. And is connected with the wounds on the back. Throxi cavity contain 200 ml. of blood. Heart, lungs, lever, spleen, kidneys are pale. Stomach distended with gas. Pelvis free. Bladder empty. Opening of Skull: Skull - intact, membranes -intact. Convolution present in the brain. He opined that injuries 1 and 2 are one and the same injuries corresponding to each other and those injuries could be possible due to stab by a knife, like M.O.1. He further opined that the death would have occurred 26 hours before the postmortem and the deceased would appear to have died of extensive injuries to the lungs, haemorrhage and shock due to it and issued postmortem certificate, Ex.P.5 to that effect. He further opined that the death would have occurred 26 hours before the postmortem and the deceased would appear to have died of extensive injuries to the lungs, haemorrhage and shock due to it and issued postmortem certificate, Ex.P.5 to that effect. 5. In continuation of his investigation, P.W.12 at about 5.30 a.m. on 10.07.2006, arrested the accused and recorded the voluntary confession given by the accused in the presence of P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer and another, pursuant to the admissible portion of confessional statement of the accused at about 8.00 a.m., he recovered M.O.1 Knife produced by the accused under the cover of the mahazar, Ex.P.4 and subjected the accused to judicial remand after he was being produced before the Judicial Magistrate. Soon after the postmortem was over, the Head Constable, P.W.11 recovered lunghi, M.O.3; shirt, M.O.4 and jatty, M.O.5 from the person of the deceased and handed over them to P.W.12, who in turn received under Form-95. P.W.12 sent those material objects to the Judicial Magistrate concerned for onward transmission to the Forensic Science Department, for chemical analysis under the cover of the request letter, Ex.P.6 and the Judicial Magistrate in turn forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Department. The copy of the letter the Judicial Magistrate for having sent the material object for chemical analysis is Ex.P.7. The chemical report on the clothing worn recovered from the person of the deceased and the crime weapon viz., knife, M.O.1 is Ex.P8 and the serology report thereon is Ex.P.9. Ex.P.Thereafter, P.W.12 examined the rest of the independent and formal witnesses and recorded their statements. Upon completion of his investigation, he laid the final report on 15.09.2006 as against the accused for the offence under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C. 6. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and marked 15 exhibits and produced 7 material objects. On behalf of the accused neither documents was marked nor any witness was examined. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against him, he totally denied them as false. However, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. 7. In questioning the legality of the conviction and sentence, Mr. However, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. 7. In questioning the legality of the conviction and sentence, Mr. Samidoss Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the motive put forth by the prosecution cannot be the reason for the accused to take a drastic step to commit murder of the deceased who is none other than his employer. It is highly improbable that the accused murdered his employer only for non payment of just a sum Rs.50/- representing the arrears of wages. That apart, P.Ws.1 and 5 are interested witnesses and P.Ws.2 to 4 though independent witnesses, they are neighbours who would only support the case of P.Ws.1 and 5. He would further submit that in any case, admittedly, one week prior to the occurrence, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased over non-payment of the sum of Rs.50/-and even just prior to the occurrence, there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased for the same reason and both of them were separated and only due to the persistent provocation, the accused had stabbed the deceased. However, the accused had caused only one stab injury and therefore, there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder and in that event, the appellant is liable to be convicted for the lesser offence. 8. We have heard Mr.P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He would draw our attention to the evidence that P.Ws.1 to 5 who are eye-witnesses. He would heavily rely upon, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 who are independent witnesses and there is nothing to indicate that they had falsely implicated the accused. As far as the motive is concerned, taking into consideration of the status of the accused, a sum of Rs.50/- is not meager amount and therefore, he aggravated by the attitude of the deceased in not paying the said sum of Rs.50/-representing the arrears of wages, he has committed the offence. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that though the accused had caused only one stab injury, such injury was caused on the vital part of the deceased viz., chest and the sharp edge of the knife had come out on the back side of the deceased body. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that though the accused had caused only one stab injury, such injury was caused on the vital part of the deceased viz., chest and the sharp edge of the knife had come out on the back side of the deceased body. Hence, the appellant/accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. as has rightly been done by the trial Judge. 9. As far as the act of the accused in committing murder is concerned, there are five eye-witnesses. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 who are the parents of the deceased are kept aside, the prosecution has let in evidence, through P.Ws.2 to 4 implicating the appellant/accused for stabbing the deceased on his chest. Their evidence is consistent and has not been challenged effectively in the cross-examination. The fact that the accused had caused stab injury on the chest is spoken to by the Doctor, P.W.8 who conducted postmortem. The injury as spoken to by the above witnesses are also found by the Doctor, P.W.8 who conducted postmortem and issued postmortem certificate, Ex.P.5. Hence, the prosecution has established the fact that the accused had stabbed the deceased on his chest with the knife, M.O.1. The Doctor, P.W.8 also opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to extensive injuries to the lungs, haemorrhage and shock. Hence, the prosecution has also proved the cause of death, viz., the injury which was said to have been caused by the appellant/accused on the deceased on his left side of the chest. As far as the motive is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused being only a menial worker under the deceased who was also only a mason, the accused was more concerned about his arrears of wages. The said sum is a matter to the accused as it represents approximately half a day wage. The appellant/accused was particular about collecting the said amount from the deceased as could be seen from the evidence viz., that even a week prior to the occurrence, he had demanded the said amount from the deceased, and the deceased had refused to pay. Even just prior to the occurrence, the accused had demanded the said amount from the deceased and there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Even just prior to the occurrence, the accused had demanded the said amount from the deceased and there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Therefore only, the accused with the persistent or sustained provocation had picked up a knife from his house and stabbed the deceased. Though the prosecution has let in evidence of non payment of Rs.50/- as motive and the said motive is accepted, the question remains is, that the appellant/accused had committed the offence only with the intention to kill the deceased solely owing to non-payment of the said amount. There is only only stab inflicted by the accused. Of course, the said injury is on the vital part of the deceased viz., on the chest. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the accused belongs to a very lower status and even a sum of Rs.50/- is very much important for him and as such he repeatedly demanded for the amount, and following the non-payment of the said amount by the deceased, on the fateful day, due to the sudden quarrel, he had picked up the knife and stabbed the deceased. The facts even as put forth by the prosecution did not reveal any intention on the part of the accused to murder the deceased. Hence, in our considered view, the accused is liable to be punished only for the offence under Section 304 (ii) of I.P.C. and should only be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed setting aside the judgment dated 15.02.2007 made in S.C.No.481 of 2006 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under Section 304(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304 (ii) of I.P.C. The other portions of the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused and the directions issued by the trial Judge in regard to case properties shall remain unchanged. If the appellant/accused had already paid the fine amount before the trial court, the same is ordered to be retained in respect of fine imposed above. Both the sentences is ordered to be run concurrently. If the appellant/accused had already paid the fine amount before the trial court, the same is ordered to be retained in respect of fine imposed above. Both the sentences is ordered to be run concurrently. The petitioner is entitled for the benefit under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.