Judgment : M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri made in S.C. No. 285 of 2004 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated thus: The appellant/accused was a worker in A.K.P. Poultry Farm at Pappampadi and he was also living in the quarters attached to it. The deceased Babu was rung a chicken centre at Pudupatti. On 3. 2004 at about 7.30 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between both of them. The same was witnessed by P.W.4. The next day i.e., on 3. 2004 at about 8.00 p.m. the deceased went to the place of the accused along with P.W.2 and questioned about the previous day occurrence and in that transaction the accused got wild and took a koduval and attacked him on the different parts of the body as a result of which the said Babu died. P.W.2 rushed to the house of the deceased and narrated the same to P.W.1 and to his brother Mani, who is the father of the deceased. P.W.1 went to the spot and after ascertaining the fact, he proceeded to the respondent Police Station at about 10 p.m. and gave a complaint which is marked as Exhibit P-1 and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by P.W.10 to Sub-Inspector of Police in Crime No. 69 of 2004 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. was despatched to Court. On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.11 the Investigating Officer took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Exhibit P-2 observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch Exhibit P-15. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared Exhibit P-16 the inquest report in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars. Pursuant to the requisition made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. P.W.6 the doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued Exhibit P-7 post-mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. On 3. 2004 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused was arrested. P.W.6 the doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued Exhibit P-7 post-mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. On 3. 2004 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused was arrested. He gave a confessional statement and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part of the same is marked as Exhibit P-4. The accused produce M.O.6 koduval which was recovered under Exhibit P-4 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant to the requisition made the material objects which were recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and the material object koduval recovered from the accused were all subjected to chemical analysis which resulted in Exhibit P-12 chemical report and Exhibit P-13 serologist report. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer file a final report. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied 16 exhibits and 9 material objects. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances and they denied them as false. Two defence witnesses viz., D.W.1 wife of the accused and D.W.2 the owner of Poultry where the accused was working, were examined on the side of the defence. The Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials and took a view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as to the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. .4. Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel Mr. Samuel Raja Pandian would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to through guilt of the accused. According to the prosecution, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous day i.e., on 3. 2004 at 7.30 p.m. The only witness examined in that regard is P.W.4 and he has also turned hostile. Thus, there is no proof for the alleged motive. The learned counsel would further add that the only witness examined by the prosecution as eyewitness was P.W.2 but P.W.2 had not given any report before the police station. 2004 at 7.30 p.m. The only witness examined in that regard is P.W.4 and he has also turned hostile. Thus, there is no proof for the alleged motive. The learned counsel would further add that the only witness examined by the prosecution as eyewitness was P.W.2 but P.W.2 had not given any report before the police station. According to P.W.2 after the occurrence was over, he went to the house of P.W.1 and informed him. Then, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave the complaint. It is pertinent to point out that P.W.2 did not got to the Police Station at all. Even as per the prosecution case, it was the deceased who went to the place of the accused along with P.W.2 and it would clearly indicate the fact that the deceased was the aggressor. Added further learned counsel, the appellant had acted his right of self defence. In the instant case, two witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. D.W.1 is the wife of accused and D.W.2 is the owner of Poultry Farm who immediately took the accused to the Police station the very night. The learned counsel would further add that from the evidence of D.W.1 – wife of the accused it would be quite clear that at the time just preceding the occurrence, the deceased attempted to outrage her modesty and attempted to rape her and when distress cry was raised, the accused who saw the same naturally provoked, took a knife and attacked the deceased. It was only an exercise of private defence. The learned counsel would further add, a female lady like D.W.1 could not have come to the Court to give such an evidence that would be indicative of the truth of the evidence. The trial Court should have believed the same but failed to do so. According to D.W.2 he had took the accused to the Police Station immediately. The Investigating Agency claimed that the accused was arrested only on 3. 2004. If the accused and D.W.2 were available at the police station on 3. 2004, the alleged arrest of the accused on 3. 2004 and the recovery of all material objects are thoroughly unbelievable. The evidence of P.W.2 is also thoroughly unbelievable. The prosecution failed to prove the motive and also the arrest and recovery. In short, the prosecution failed miserably in proving its case. 2004, the alleged arrest of the accused on 3. 2004 and the recovery of all material objects are thoroughly unbelievable. The evidence of P.W.2 is also thoroughly unbelievable. The prosecution failed to prove the motive and also the arrest and recovery. In short, the prosecution failed miserably in proving its case. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 5. The Court heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. It is not controversy that the deceased Babu @ Sankar was done to death in an incident that took place at about 8 p.m. on 3. 2004 and at the place of occurrence. Following the inquest made by the investigating Officer P.W.11, the dead body was subjected to post mortem and P.W.6 doctor has deposed before the Court that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. The post mortem certificate Exhibit P-7 was also marked through him which would go to that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. This fact was never questioned by the appellant/accused at any state of the proceedings and hence, there is no impediment for this Court in recording so. .7. In order to substantiate the charges that it was the accused who attacked the deceased at the time and place of occurrence, P.W.2 was examined by the prosecution. Needless to say that in a case like this, the Court can sustain conviction on a solitary testimony and an uncorroborated testimony, if it has inspired the confidence of the Court. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.2, the Court is of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.2 stood the test. According to P.W.2, he accompanied the deceased to the house of the accused and questioned about his previous day conduct. At that time, it was the accused who took the knife and attacked him indiscriminately and as a result of which he succumbed to injuries. At this juncture, it is pointed out that P.W.2 is no way enimical to the accused or in no way could be interested in the deceased family. Even the occurrence was candidly admitted by the accuse since he came out with the statement of private defence. What was contended by the accused before the trial Court and equally here also is that the deceased is the aggressor. Even the occurrence was candidly admitted by the accuse since he came out with the statement of private defence. What was contended by the accused before the trial Court and equally here also is that the deceased is the aggressor. On the day of occurrence, the deceased along with P.W.2 went to the place of the accused and questioned the accused. At that time, he attempted to outrage the modesty of the wife of the accused who was examined as D.W.1. Provoked by the circumstances, the accused took a koduval and attacked the deceased. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that once the prosecution has come forward to state that it was P.W.2 who accompanied the deceased at that time it would indicate the fact that such occurrence as put forth by the defence could not have taken place at all. So long as the evidence of P.W.2 has to be accepted by the Court, the other contention put forth by the accused is to be eschewed. In the instance case, the Court has to reject the theory of private defence. The Court has accepted the evidence projected through P.W.2. Further, the contention put forth by the learned counsel insofar as arrest and recovery of M.O. is concerned, the Court has accepted the defence version. According to D.W.2 he took the accused immediately to the police Station on the very day. According to P.W.6 doctor, on 3. 2004 at 12.45 p.m. he conducted post mortem on the dead body or the deceased at that time the weapon used by the accused was shown to him. This would indicate the fact that the evidence of D.W.2 and the evidence of the doctor that the accused was well available with the police immediately the next day have got to be accepted. The alleged arrest and recovery of M.O. at the instance of the confession made by the accused have got to be rejected. Even rejecting that part of the evidence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.W.2 was available for prosecution to sustain the conviction. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case that it was the accused who had attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence and had caused his death. 8. Even rejecting that part of the evidence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.W.2 was available for prosecution to sustain the conviction. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case that it was the accused who had attacked the deceased at the time of occurrence and had caused his death. 8. Insofar as the nature of act of the accused is concerned, the Court is of the considered opinion that it was would not attract the penal provision of murder. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that it was the deceased who went to the place of the accused to question about his conduct on the previous day and P.W.2 also accompanied him and there was and quarrel between both of them at the time of occurrence. Due to sudden provocation the accused has attacked him. Hence the act of the accused was neither intentional nor deliberate, but he was provoked by the said situation. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder, but it would attract the penal provision of Section 304(11) IPC and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, awarding punishment of 5 years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified and instead, the appellant is convicted under Section 304(11) IPC and is sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be given set off. The fine amount imposed under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount imposed under Section 304(11) IPC. In other respects, the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed. 10. With the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is dismissed. Criminal appeal dismissed.