JUDGMENT Ms. R. MALA, J. This appeal arises out of the Judgment, dated 28.8.2007, made in S.C. No. 182 of 2006 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram, whereby the appellant, who faced trial for the charges under Section 326 and 307 IPC, was found guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. However, he was acquitted from the charge under Section 326 IPC. 2. Case of prosecution, in nutshell, is as follows: (a) P.W.1-Thangavelammal and P.W.2- Ramachandran are husband and wife. They are having a petty shop in their village. Eight days prior to the occurrence, a girl came to their shop and at that time, the appellant/accused Saravanan eve-teased her. On seeing the same, P.W.2 warned the accused. On the fateful day, i.e. 3.7.2006, at 7.45 p.m., when P.W.1 and her husband (P.W.2) were chatting with each other in front of the shop, along with P.W.3-Gurusamy Thevar, the appellant/accused came there with an Aruval (M.O.1), questioned P.W.2 as to how he could question and warn him while he was talking with the girl and uttering the words cut the deceased on his right side neck with M.O.1 Aruval and when the appellant/accused attempted to cut again, P.W.2 prevented the same, in which he sustained injuries on his right thumb and index finger. P.Ws.1 and 3 tried to prevent the same, but the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 conveyed the news to his son-in-law (P.W.4) Saivam, who was in Madurai. On his instructions, P.W.1, P.W.5 and one Moorthy took the injured P.W.2 to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. (b) P.W.8 - Dr. Mohan, attached to Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital, admitted P.W.2 on 3.7.2006 at 10.45 p.m. and he treated him for the injuries sustained by him. He gave Exhibit P-7 Wound Certificate to P.W.2. (c) On receipt of intimation from hospital, P.W.9 - Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Kovilankulam Police Station, went to the hospital on 4.7.2006 at 11.00 a.m. and since P.W.2 was not able to speak, he obtained a statement (Exhibit P-1) from P.W.1 - Thangavelammal, the wife of injured P.W.2. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, a case was registered in Cr. No. 49 of 2006 under Section 304 and 307 I.P.C. Exhibit P-8 is the First Information Report. On the basis of Exhibit P-1, a case was registered in Cr. No. 49 of 2006 under Section 304 and 307 I.P.C. Exhibit P-8 is the First Information Report. P.W.9 sent Exhibit P-1 Complaint and Exhibit P-8 FIR to the Court and their copies to higher officials. (d) Since Inspector of Police was on other duty, on instruction, P.W.9 had taken up the preliminary investigation. Before proceeding to the scene of occurrence, at 3.00 p.m., P.W.9 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.6 Muthukaruppan, Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant. At that time, the accused voluntarily gave a confession statement. In pursuance of the admissible portion of the said confession statement (Exhibit P-3), the accused handed over M.O.1 Aruval, which was hidden by him near a Kattukaruvel bush and the same was seized by P.W.9 under Exhibit P-4 mahazar. Then, at 17.15 hours, P.W.9 inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-6 -Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-9-Rough Plan. From the scene of occurrence, bloodstained mud (M.O.2) and sample mud (M.O.3) were recovered under Exhibit P-5-Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 Muthukaruppan and one Chandran. Witnesses were examined and P.W.9 put up the case before P.W.10- Palanichamy, Inspector of Police, for further investigation. (e) P.W.10 proceeded with further investigation. He examined P.W.8 Doctor who treated the injured P.W.2, completed the investigation and filed the final report against the accused under Section 324, 326 and 307 IPC. 3. In the trial Court, to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-9 and produced M.Os.1 to On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case has been foisted against them. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 4. Accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case has been foisted against them. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 4. Upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge after holding that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is trustworthy and coupled with the evidence of injured witness P.W.2, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused and found the accused guilty under Section307 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment but, however, found him not guilty under Section 326 IPC and acquitted him of the said charge. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. Learned appellant's counsel would contend that motive for the occurrence has not been proved. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, eight days prior to the occurrence the accused teased one lady, who was said to be a customer of the shop owned by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the same was questioned by P.W.2 and he also warned the accused as to how he could tease a lady and, therefore, the accused took vengeance and after eight days, he came with M.O.1 Aruval and assaulted P.W.2. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that it is unsafe to conclude that the accused was having motive for commission of the offence. 7. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has put-forth his arguments stating that since the prosecution case is based on eye-witnesses and even though P.W.1 and P.W.4 are relatives of P.W.2, who is the victim, P.W.3 is an independent witness and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3, which clearly proved the incident. 8. Motive is a double edged weapon, which can be used either way. In the present, the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye-witnesses and therefore motive does not play a vital role. Further, sufficiency or insufficiency motive to prove occurrence does not assume much significance. However, in the present case, motive has been proved by way of examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. 9. In the present, the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye-witnesses and therefore motive does not play a vital role. Further, sufficiency or insufficiency motive to prove occurrence does not assume much significance. However, in the present case, motive has been proved by way of examination of P.Ws.1 to 3. 9. Learned appellant's counsel would contend that the alleged teasing of a girl by the accused eight days prior to the incident was not proved by examining the lady who is alleged to have been teased by the accused and hence the motive assigned by the prosecution for the occurrence has not been proved. But, the above contention does not hold good because, as already discussed, since the case of the prosecution is based on eye-witnesses and independent eye-witness of P.W.3, non-examination of the lady alleged to have been teased by the accused is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that P.W.1 is the wife of the victim and P.W.4 Saivam is the son-in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and thus the witnesses are related and interested witnesses and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon. The above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant does not merit acceptance because, P.W.2 is the victim. He sustained injuries in the transaction. As already stated P.W.3 is a neighbour and he is not related to P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 in respect of each and every overt act of the accused. Further, the incident has been clearly spoken to by P.W.3, who is an independent witness. In such circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be relied upon as unacceptable one. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that P.W.8, the Doctor, in Exhibit P-7, the wound certificate, has mentioned only one injury and he has not mentioned the other injuries. While considering Exhibit P-7 wound certificate, a cut injury measuring 15 x 6 cm on the right side of neck is found mentioned. Further, in the bottom of the same wound certificate the Doctor has opined that Injury No. 1 is grievous injury and Injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple injuries. While considering Exhibit P-7 wound certificate, a cut injury measuring 15 x 6 cm on the right side of neck is found mentioned. Further, in the bottom of the same wound certificate the Doctor has opined that Injury No. 1 is grievous injury and Injury Nos. 2 and 3 are simple injuries. While P.W.8, the Doctor, was in Box, he has given an explanation that he has not mentioned the simple injuries sustained by the victim. In such circumstances, the said explanation offered by the Doctor is acceptable. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant does not merit acceptance. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the occurrence is said to have taken place at 7.45 p.m. on 3.7.2006 but Exhibit P-1 complaint has been recorded only at 11.00 a.m. on the next day and thus there is delay in giving complaint to the Police. The incident had taken place at about 7.45 p.m. on 3.7.2006 and immediately P.W.2, the victim, was taken to Hospital where P.W.8 gave treatment at 10.45 p.m. Then, on receipt of information from the Hospital on 4.7.2006, P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police had rushed to the hospital. Since the victim was in unconscious state, P.W.9 obtained complaint from P.W.1, wife of the victim, came back to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 49 of 2006 under Sections 324 and 307 IPC and prepared Exhibit P-8 FIR. While considering the same, the delay has been properly explained and it does not affect the case of the prosecution. 13. Lastly, learned appellant's counsel would contend that the accused is an insane person and even while he was facing trial his mental faculties were affected and even now he is in the same mental condition but the trial Court has not considered this aspect in proper perspective. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has urged that even during the trial, the same defence plea was raised and at that time no doctor was examined and no medical certificate to that effect was produced before the Court to show that the appellant/accused was suffering from mental imbalance and moreover, even now the appellant has not filed any petition before this Court to prove that he is mentally affected. 14. 14. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that at the time of occurrence, the mental faculty of the appellant was affected. By so contending, a feeble attempt was made raising plea of insanity. Whenever a plea of insanity is raised, the accused must prove that at the time of occurrence, he was in unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of act at the time of commission of offence. Plea of insanity must be established by the accused by adducing evidence. Upon analysis of evidence, the trial Court held that no evidence was adduced by the accused to substantiate the plea of insanity. Since no evidence was adduced to prove the plea of insanity, we also endorse the view of the learned Sessions Judge negativing plea of insanity. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the decision (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 321 : 2008 (4) CTC Page 308 and argue that since the motive is not proved and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case to establish the guilt of the accused, the appellant is entitled for an order of acquittal. But the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. As already discussed in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 10, the motive for the occurrence has been proved. Moreover, it is a case based on eye-witness. The victim himself has spoken about the same. P.W.8 - Doctor who gave treatment to the victim has also deposed about the injuries found on the body of the victim. There is no contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon another decision in (2009) Crl. LJ 1136 (SC). In the said case the opinion of the Doctor proved that the deceased had not died due to direct result of injury sustained. But the above factual situation is not applicable to the case on hand, because here the case was under Section 307 IPC and the victim himself has deposed before the Court that he was attacked by the accused and this has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8, the Doctor, who gave treatment to the victim and by Exhibit P-7, the wound certificate, issued by him. The trial Court is correct in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC. 17. The trial Court is correct in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC. 17. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 has clearly proved that on 3.7.2006 at about 7.45 p.m., in front of P.W.2's Petty shop when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were sitting and chatting with P.W.3, the accused rushed to the place and assaulted the P.W.2, the victim, on his right neck stating "why you scolded and warned me when I teased a lady". Their evidence would further prove that when the accused gave a second blow, the same was prevented by P.W.2 and at that time he sustained cut injuries on his right thumb and index finger. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.5 and P.W.1 took P.W.2, the injured, to the hospital where P.W.8 Doctor gave treatment to the injuries sustained by P.W.2. The overt act of the accused has been corroborated by medical evidence also. The overt act of the accused/appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution by examining P.W.3, an independent witness and the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the accused inflicted injuries to P.W.2 and found him guilty under Section 307 IPC. 18. Insofar as the sentence is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge, while finding the accused guilty under Section 307 IPC and convicting him thereunder, has imposed life imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aged about 25 years and he is an youngster and moreover it is the first offence and that the life sentence awarded by the trial Court is on the higher side and hence prayed for the modification/reduction of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 19. In the decision AIR 1985 SC 1130 : (1985) SCC (Crl.) 359, the Supreme Court held that: "What ought to be the proper sentence in a given case is left to the discretion of the trial Court, which discretion has to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Various relevant circumstances which have a bearing on the question of sentence have to be kept in view. However, in an appeal against the conviction, it is open to the High Court to alter or modify or reduce the sentence after confirming conviction. Various relevant circumstances which have a bearing on the question of sentence have to be kept in view. However, in an appeal against the conviction, it is open to the High Court to alter or modify or reduce the sentence after confirming conviction. If the High Court is of the opinion that the sentence is heavy or unduly harsh or requires to be modified, the same must be done on well recognised judicial dicta." 20. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision, along with the age of the accused and his antecedents, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC, we are inclined to reduce the quantum of sentence of life sentence into a term of five years rigorous imprisonment. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of life imprisonment is modified into one of five years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by the appellant is directed to be given set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appeal partly allowed.