JUDGMENT : (PER : K. J. ROHEE, J) 1. The appellant has challenged his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- indefault R.I. For Six months imposed by the 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial No.43/2001 decided on 29.1.2003. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Vaishali (PW 1) was residing with her husband Vinod Madhukarrao Wasnik (the deceased) in the house of the appellant situated at Rohidas Nagar, Yavatmal as tenants. The house of Vaishali's father Babarao Bansod was situated in Patipura near Rohidas Nagar. 3. On 6.4.2000 PW 1 Vaishali and her husband Vinod went to the house of Babarao Bansod in the evening as they were not feeling well. PW 1 Vaishali was talking with her mother Kanchan in the front room of the house, whereas Vinod was standing at the pan shop in front of the house. Around 10.00 p.m. the appellant along with his wife Shabana came to the house of Babarao Bansod. At that time, Shabana was in an injured condition. On seeing them Vinod entered the house. The appellant was holding a large knife. On seeing Vinod, the appellant asked his wife Shabana as to what were her relations with Vinod. Shabana kept mum. The appellant repeated the question to her at the point of knife. Thereupon, she said that she was having relations with Vinod like brother. However, the appellant abused Shabana and said that she was telling a lie. The appellant threatened her. Thereupon, Shabana admitted that she was having illicit relations with Vinod. The appellant was enraged and assaulted Vinod with the knife on his stomach. Vinod fell on the cot. The appellant gave another blow on the chest of Vinod. PW 1 Vaishali and her mother Kanchan raised alarm. Sumit Petkar (PW 4) and others rushed there. On seeing them, the appellant and his wife fled away. Vinod was removed to Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries at 10.25 p.m. Soon thereafter PW 1 Vaishali lodged report (Exh.15) at Police Station, Yavatmal City. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.214/2000 under Section 302 of IPC was registered at (Exh.16) against the appellant. On the next day autopsy was conducted. Among other injuries two stab wounds over chest of deceased were noted. On the basis of the said report, Crime No.214/2000 under Section 302 of IPC was registered at (Exh.16) against the appellant. On the next day autopsy was conducted. Among other injuries two stab wounds over chest of deceased were noted. The probable cause of death was said to be shock due to stab wounds to chest. The appellant was arrested on 15.11.2000. The knife could not be recovered After necessary investigation the appellant was chargesheeted. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The defence of the appellant is that deceased Vinod was a DADA and used to collect HAPTA from people. On the day of incident some outsiders had been to Vinod to assault him. At that time Vinod fled away from the house. Vinod used to quarrel with the appellant over payment of rent. The appellant does not know as to who killed Vinod. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge held that the appellant committed murder of Vinod. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. The said judgment is under challenge. 6. We have heard Mr. R.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D.M. Kale, APP for the respondent/State. We have also gone through the record and proceedings of the trial with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It was vehemently urged by Mr. Gaikwad that PW 1 Vaishali is the widow of deceased Vinod and PW 2 Santosh s/o Ramdas Wankhede is the close friend of deceased Vinod. Thus both of them are interested witnesses. Both of them claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the incident of assault by the appellant on Vinod. However, the trial court should not have relied on their evidence, they being interested witnesses. 8. We are unable to appreciate this submission. It is, no doubt, true that PW 1 Vaishali is the widow of the deceased Vinod and PW 2 Santosh is close friend of deceased Vinod. However, it cannot be said that because of their relationship with deceased Vinod, they are interested witnesses and that their evidence needs to be discarded. The trial Court has considered the evidence of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh in details in the judgment along with the so-called omissions brought out during their cross examination. However, it cannot be said that because of their relationship with deceased Vinod, they are interested witnesses and that their evidence needs to be discarded. The trial Court has considered the evidence of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh in details in the judgment along with the so-called omissions brought out during their cross examination. The trial court found that the omissions are not material so as to affect the testimony of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh. We find that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh and that the trial court was justified in relying upon their evidence as trustworthy. 9. It may be noted that the evidence of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh also finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence of PW 4 Sumit Petkar, who rushed to the place of incident after hearing the noise. The evidence of these witnesses cannot be thrown only on the ground that they did not make any effort to catch the appellant. Considering the grave situation on the spot, the people, who gathered there, may not have courage to apprehend the appellant. 10. It may be seen that the appellant disappeared from the scene and could be arrested only after six months. Because of the time gap between the incident and the appellant's arrest, the wearing apparels of the appellant and the knife used by him for assaulting Vinod could not be recovered. However, this also would not affect the credibility of PW 1 Vaishali, PW 2 Santosh and PW 4 Sumit, because the appellant got sufficient time to get rid of his wearing apparels and knife. 11. The ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the post-mortem report (Exh.44). It shows that in addition to the injuries over shoulder and elbow there were two stab wounds on the chest of the deceased. The probable cause of death was shock due to stab wounds on the chest. Thus, the evidence of the eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence. 12. It is true that no injury on the abdomen of deceased Vinod was noted. However, this would not render the evidence of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh untrustworthy because the appellant might have tried to inflict blows on abdomen, but they hit the chest portion which proved fatal. 12. It is true that no injury on the abdomen of deceased Vinod was noted. However, this would not render the evidence of PW 1 Vaishali and PW 2 Santosh untrustworthy because the appellant might have tried to inflict blows on abdomen, but they hit the chest portion which proved fatal. Hence, we find that the trial court was fully justified in holding the appellant liable for causing the death of Vinod. 13. The next question is whether the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is proved against the appellant. 14. In this respect Mr. Gaikwad, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the offence comes within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. He further submitted that at the most it can be said that the appellant assaulted Vinod with the knowledge that the assault was likely to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death of Vinod. As such the offence is under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this submission, Mr. Gaikwad placed reliance on Ghansham s/o Narayan Ninawe .vrs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Cri.L.J. 27 (Bombay). 15. From the evidence on record it is seen that when the appellant brought his wife Shabana to the house of Babarao Bansod, deceased Vinod was not in the house of Babarao Bansod. The evidence shows that at that time deceased Vinod was standing near pan shop in front of the house of Babarao Bansod. It seems that the appellant came to the house of Babarao Bansod not in search of Vinod but he wanted to make complaint about the relations between his wife Shabana and Vinod to the mother of Vaishali. Perhaps that is why the appellant did not take notice of the presence of Vinod at the pan shop in front of the house of Babarao Bansod. When Vinod followed the appellant to the house of Babarao Bansod, the appellant asked his wife Shabana about her relations with Vinod. The appellant assaulted Vinod only after Shabana confessed having relations with Vinod. This clearly shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to assault Vinod and he assaulted Vinod in a heat of passion when Shabana confessed about the relations between her and Vinod. These circumstances bring the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. This clearly shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to assault Vinod and he assaulted Vinod in a heat of passion when Shabana confessed about the relations between her and Vinod. These circumstances bring the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Thus, the offence that has been established against the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 16. Now the question is whether Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC is attracted. It was urged by Mr. Gaikwad that at the most the assault by knife by the appellant was with the knowledge that it was likely to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and as such case falls within Section 304 Part II of IPC. We are unable to appreciate this submission. It may be noted that the appellant assaulted Vinod with knife on vital part of the body namely chest. The appellant inflicted two blows by knife which caused two stab wounds over chest. This shows that the appellant must have assaulted Vinod with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Thus the offence committed by the appellant would fall within Section 304 Part I of IPC. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned APP for the respondent/state on the point of sentence. It was urged by the learned APP that the punishment of imprisonment for life may be imposed upon the appellant for the offence which is proved against him, whereas the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that minimum sentence may be imposed on the appellant. It may be seen that it has come in the evidence of PW 2 Santosh (the close friend of deceased Vinod) that PW 1 Vaishali and deceased Vinod were residing jointly without marriage. They were residing in the house of the appellant as tenants. It seems that during their short stay in the house of the appellant illicit relations were developed between the deceased Vinod and Shabana (the wife of the appellant) which might have enraged the appellant. Considering these circumstances, in our opinion, lesser punishment than life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we pass the following order : 18. The appeal is partly allowed. Considering these circumstances, in our opinion, lesser punishment than life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Hence, we pass the following order : 18. The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. He is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- indeafult to suffer R.I. for 6 months. The above term of imprisonment shall be set off against the period of detention of the appellant.